One of the guys who invented the process for large scale production was Fritz Haber, to make explosives and chemical weapons. He’s also responsible for using chlorine gas on the battlefield in WW1. His wife was a chemist and an activist, who shot herself in the heart after learning about his involvement. Haber left within days for the Eastern Front to oversee gas release against the Russian Army.

He ended up saving more lives than he destroyed, but what a story.

Halfway reading the OP I was like “I’m about to get rickrolled”, relieved before opening the comments but got 'rolled either way. 5/7

ALL HAIL THE HYPNOGHAIK

When you put all the five year olds on earth in one room, every one of you would be able to compare two blocks, a rod and a ball. Depending on how you were thought you either pass the rod along or the ball. Then some very smart people came up with special ways to do very hard maths using those blocks.

Now, in the olden days they kept the way they thought those kids a secret. But we knew what the results were, so we could all do much harder math then we could do in our heads. So while the other adults knew how to pack you all closer together and needed new ways to do even harder math, there was a group of good people who didn’t really like all the secrecy and thought that they were doing it way to complicated but couldn’t do anything about it.

Like it always is, years went by and the world changed, they kept making up new rules on how the blocks should be passed around so it became slower. Those good people then decided we should be simplifying, to make it faster yet again! “And no more secrecy!” - They said. “So everyone can build their own mini five year old sweat shops and it would cost significantly less then it does now!”

Yeah heard many good things, mine could’ve been a fluke.

Spot on, G402 was the longest runner, but had issues on right and middle click. Steelseries rival didn’t last long at all.

Is it just me or does the middle click wear out more quickly than the others? Always figured they use a worse switch because they think people use them less. My last two failed the same way.

I’d be willing to pay that yearly fee for one game, just to have it on there and play when I want. Meanwhile I’ll be using my PSP, so good for handheld emulation.

They’ve also locked N64 and GBA behind an extra subscription model on the Switch. I’ve paid a month here and there for online support, I don’t want an entire year AND paying double to play one or two retro games.

Is this… loss?

You could start by downloading your Google data raw, much easier to explore your own data if it’s all on the same drive.

Exactly, folding phones have so many issues people very rarely buy a folding one again.

He’s clearly taking the “but it’s better for human kind” stand, which I support with all I can. But academics can be guilty of gatekeeping and being pretentious, which I’ve seen by many lmao

Reporting your conclusions doesn’t require being public. It means the larger group of people you release it to, the less bias you’ll have. Meaning in a closed organisation you have added biases of companies and marginally less people to prove you wrong, decreasing the overal quality of the conducted science. But still science, which by definition isn’t black and white.

For sure, and calling Elon a twat would be an insult to twats out there. But saying “if it’s not published it’s not science” to one of the greatest grifters while having to explain the nuance of what you tweeted is a big L in my book.

I agree though, we can argue open science is much better and more reliable. We can argue privatly conducting a study and doing all the steps that would be conducted by the academic community within one organisation leads to more biased and less reliable results. But it’s still science by its very definition, I’d even argue denying that is a bit disrespectful to all scientists doing so.

An organisation with fully independent teams tackling the same problems can absolutely be defined as peer review. Not in the traditional sense, but reviewing, confirming and replicating nonetheless. Following the scientific method is what makes something scientific, not the act of publishing.

You can argue of the merits of those papers, an organisation can never make public statements about private research. But saying that what their doing is not science, then you’re just needlessly gatekeeping.

I think the word you’re looking for is merit, publication which are cited and peer reviewed hold much more merit than those who don’t.

Science is a rigorous, systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world. 1

Nothing in this quote requires external publication. Following the scientific method, publishing, peer reviewing and reproduction can all happen internally in organisation using independent teams. Those private publications hold but a fraction of the merit of publications in recognised journals, but are science nonetheless.

Seems like the only difference is that if it’s public or not ie published. I think it becomes a matter of opinion then, because independent teams within the same organisation can absolutely peer review eachother, use completely different methodology to prove the same hypothesis and publish papers internally so it can be reproduced internally.

Science should be made public, but just because it’s not doesn’t mean it’s not science. When the organisation starts making public claims they should have to back that up along the official route, but they could just as well keep their findings a secret, use that secret to improve their working formula and make bank while doing that. Not calling their internal peer reviewed studies science just seems pretentious.

I feel like I’m missing something here so I’ll be the devil’s advocate, why can’t unpublished papers be reproducible? Multiple teams could independently be verifying hypotheses and results under the same organisation, adhere to the same standard but never publish, that would still be science no? Not doing humanity any favours, but science nonetheless.