Most consumers don’t buy their own routers. The only time I’ve helped people buy routers in the last decade is to get one you could install a vpn on. Looking at the wireless standards never crossed our minds.

More like “hand-crafted” or “rustic” for a similar positive vibe.

How science often works is you try to disprove things, and if you can’t, you accept them as likely to be true. So, to show that the thesis is complete and accurate, they’re trying to find places where it’s incomplete or inaccurate. In the defense, your job is to defend against these attempts.

I hate that debunking flat earth is now seen as serious rather than a 5th grade science experiment.

It’s because we can write numbers in many ways. 9900/99 is 100 just as surely as 99.99… is.

The thing is, placebos can actually be pretty effective. Hell, they’re effective even if you know they’re a placebo. And the more elaborate and similar to what you think would be involved in curing you, the more effective. So people going to chiropractors might actually be getting real results even if the things they’re doing are junk.

They’re the exact same mistake. Since the commenter you were responding to wasn’t the one to originally make the mistake, but instead was arguing with someone who’s premise relied on that mistake, it’s weird to only get on them about it.

The reason people go to “No relationship with reality” is because many people use the polls to say “will” instead of “favored” or conflate “will” and “favored.” When that’s the standard you are often presented, of course you are going to come to conclusion polling doesn’t have all that much to do with reality. Because it isn’t that predictive. Especially when you’re looking at things where we take this somewhat fuzzy number and turn it into a binary yes or no while the cloud of possibilities comfortably encompasses both outcomes.

So when talking to some making definitive statements about the outcome of an election based on polls, how they are using polls only has a tenuous relationship to reality.

This is a thread where someone made the statement “Trump would win if the election was today.” based on polls. You said yourself, that’s not what polls are for. Take it up with the person who is misusing the poll to make definitive statements like that rather than the person saying you can’t trust the polls for that.

They’re just also in anything processed. Everything has an allowable amount of bugs. And it isn’t usually 0. https://www.fda.gov/food/current-good-manufacturing-practices-cgmps-food-and-dietary-supplements/food-defect-levels-handbook

You’re the one who set that as the bar.

The idea behind this community should be that you think “wait, really? Is that serious or satire?”

I don’t think anyone at this point would even do a double take to check “is this from a satire news source?” if they happened to see it shared in a context that makes the source not immediately known (e.g. on lemmy). At this point, The Onion headlines involving Trump tend to veer into total ridiculousness (Trump killing Cohen with a pen, bribing people with pb&j, etc). The only way you can do subtlety involving him is things that are totally out of character, like anything with self awareness or acknowledgement of rigging things in his favor.

Did you really wonder if the first was satire? It is 0% surprising when Trump accuses others of what he does.

If you go read the x thread where it was originally posted, their assumptions are correct.

That’s singular, though. If you’re talking about two bags of popcorn, how do you refer to them?

Trail mix is usually nuts, some dried fruit like raisins or banana chips, and chocolate chips/m&ms or yogurt bites.

The writing of the paper is generally a trivial part of the work. Each technical paper is supposed to be a succinct summary of months or years of technical work.

Ah. I hadn’t really considered preprints or workshops. If I just count the ones that seem to be published in journals or conferences, it’s 28. Still prolific. But reasonable in a 10-15 person lab.

I’m not questioning his contributions to the field. Just being on that many papers. It just seemed like such a crazy amount of publishing.

Though deep learning has been on fire the last couple years. And the list posted included a lot of preprints and workshops, which I hadn’t really considered.

That’s kind of the point I was making.

I’ve been in academia. My field required a “significant intellectual contribution” to the research and the writing, so no putting your name on papers if you just supplied space/material/budget. You can get an acknowledgement for that, not an authorship credit.