It’s always just slavery but with extra steps.
1 Like
1 Like
worstpersonyouknow.jpg?
1 Like
Yeah he’s mega-wrong. Looking more and more like 2 egoheads instead of 1 egohead.
1 Like
Idk what the official definitions are, but this is talking about the process of Science where information and methods are shared, critiqued and then further developed (or disproven). I guess some could quibble with the scientific method of testable hypothesis, controls, etc.
But as with other things, if you don’t share it, then it didn’t happen essentially.
Still no points for Elmo.
Yeah, one can quibble with the definition of “published,” as many negative results won’t get published in many major or even minor scientific journals, but they do constitute science nonetheless. I do think it’s incumbent on the person who produced the negative result to document it and present it in some fashion, say, a lab meeting, advisory committee, etc., in order for the experiment to fully qualify as scientific.
A kid in a high school mixing things up and verifying a hypothesis is science, and any gatekeeping otherwise is terrible. Yann’s opinion would be laughed out of a room with scientists. Just a bunch of self-important hogwash to pump up their own work at the expense of private industry scientists.
1 Like
They are talking past each other. One is talking about the scientific method and the other the epistemology of science.
2 Likes
And they both sound like douchebags.
5 Likes
Someone of any training operating on their own without presenting their work for input from other people is violating two key principles of science:
- Skepticism against accepting one’s own hypothesis. One must design experiments that would falsify any hypothesis you’re making lest you accept the conclusion you want to be true too lightly. But without soliciting input from other people, you are likely to be shortsighted on necessary experiments or controls.
- Reproducibility. Accepting a result that’s not reproducible isn’t science, and thus it is a scientific necessity to document how anyone could reproduce the result you found. There’s no possibility of reproducibility without some sort of presentation or publication.
The publication certainly does not need to be accepted for print in a major scientific journal, but a high schooler should be expected to do a lab report or presentation of the work for it to qualify as scientific.
1 Like
Jacking off doesnt count as getting laid
Elon: doesn’t matter, had sex 
5 Likes
https://www.wsj.com/politics/donald-trump-elon-musk-alliance-d1fe43e3?mod=mhp
Donald Trump and Elon Musk have discussed a possible advisory role for the Tesla leader should the presumptive Republican nominee reclaim the White House, the latest sign that the once-frosty relationship between the two men has thawed.
The role hasn’t been fully hammered out and might not happen, people familiar with the talks said, but the two men discussed ways to give Musk formal input and influence over policies related to border security and the economy, both issues on which Musk has grown more vocal.
1 Like
Defining science in an art, ironically enough.
1 Like
But,
2 Likes
I’ve definitely seen that Yann bozo before, but I can’t remember where
Yeah but what if I find something on youtube that meshes with my preconceptions? That’s valid right?
2 Likes
It’s more than valid, it’s your God given right as a (white) American to have your (mis)belief respected and no one is allowed to point out that it is demonstrably wrong. FREEZE PEACH!
It is possible to do the work on your own, be your own reviewer and skeptic, etc. the best scientists do this naturally (and of course shares with others).
The worst thing I see continuously (outside of fraud) is the unwillingness to run the experiment that totally kills ones one idea. Especially for internally funded corporate research.
What a fucking psycho. I hope they autopsy his brain when he dies.
1 Like