31–40 of 68 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The future is probably mediocre. Things that are "good enough" replace real craftsmanship.
Hence the washing machine that dies 1 week after the warranty expires. Yay for capitalism!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The future is probably mediocre. Things that are "good enough" replace real craftsmanship.
Hence the washing machine that dies 1 week after the warranty expires. Yay for capitalism!
Scientific publishing is a scam. So it is hardly surprising that one of the biggest scientific publishing houses was run by a crook (Robert Maxwell). https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-b...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hence the washing machine that dies 1 week after the warranty expires. Yay for capitalism!
I imagine its quite difficult to get a washing machine to die as close as possible to the end of the warranty, but not before it. Just one week must take some real skill.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hence the washing machine that dies 1 week after the warranty expires. Yay for capitalism!
I suppose manufacturing washing machines that reliably give up the ghost months within warranty expiry is its own kind of impressive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How could this possibly pass peer review? they've probably outsourced that to generative AI too
The reviewers' names are listed on the publisher's (Frontier) site [0, top right] [0] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcell.2023.1339... .
Not only that. The JAK "pathway" is complete gibberish. The third figure is a pool of random spheres in "differentiation" steps. The whole Frontiers publishing group is widely seen in academia as worthless, however, since most promotion committees just count the number of publications no matter where they may be, they continue to publish anything and make bank.
But Frontiers has been off my list since Frontiers in Public Health published a number of AIDS denialism papers. And yeah, every figure in this paper is nonsensical garbage.
One of the things that worry me the most about AI is that it enables some of the most sloppiest and laziest operators to become even more sloppy and lazy.
Let's not forget that OpenAI has probably scraped that POS paper and added it to ChatGPT. Someone should ask it what "iollotte sserotgomar" is. Also Note on the Mission Statement: "Frontiers follows the guidelines and best practice recommendations published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Authors should refer to the author guidelines for full details. Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology is memb…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me, this is the real question. One of the purposes of the peer-review is to validate and verify results, which was clearly not done to a great extent here. Perhaps the reviewers were also using some type of AI?
Perhaps the reviewer was an AI. Which gives a new spin to 'peer review'.