Oh, good, and you fellas had me worried.

As it so happens, they can indict ham sandwiches, but not turkey subs. And I think this is arguably funnier.

Well, that’s a brand new sentence.

shoe’s on the other foot now, I guess

Just the screen? I’d have that entire thing in pieces before I left.

right? This goes so far beyond typical “not the onion” fodder, it belongs in a community named I Can’t Believe It’s Not The Onion.

keep me in the screenshot unless you want your subscriber base to know this guy from the past thinks you suck.

also, we’re so sorry. not all of us, but some of us.

but I know that there is at least one where the odds of a letter to Nature being accurate a few years later is about 50%.

…

you know, there is a difference between “getting published in Nature” and “submitting your work to Nature”. It’s subtle, perhaps: one involves being published in the journal. For the world to see and scrutinize.

I bet they get lots of letters that they do, indeed, find aren’t well substantiated enough to publish.

Also, one field. Lmao.

Also, please tell me why you made your first comment, I’m genuinely curious. Did you read about this somewhere? Where, if you recall?

it’s not about a takedown, really, I’m not trying to be mean (not especially hard, anyways), I just want to understand what Nature, or science as a whole, did to piss them off enough to make shit up about it. Or if they’re just having a bad day they oughta just say so.

that sounds like the dumbest horseshit I’ve ever heard of, both because an educational journal is built on its reputation, and because even if it were true, you’d still be wrong to imply that’s a bad thing for a different reason: proving some other guy wrong is part of the process.

let’s assume – even for a brief moment – you are, in fact, 100% correct with this claim.

You’re almost definitely not, but hey, let’s assume.

scientists are all about being right, so much so that they loathe their own frauds (watch some BobbyBroccoli documentaries if you don’t believe me), and they also take extreme pleasure in disproving each other. sometimes, good science is in trying to disprove what some other guy or some other team said because “I want to be right/I want that fucker I hate to be wrong (we’re all petty humans, even scientists)/I want us to understand the world better, and we need to know if this is in fact as they claim”. Peer review is ingrained in their doctrine, that’s what good science is. You think if someone, a person with enemies, competition, and friends alike, got their paper in one of the most prestigious educational journals in the world, someone, somewhere wouldn’t be going “nuh-uh! I bet I can prove otherwise!”? And at that point it’s two scholars betting their career dick to swing around that they’re right and the other guy’s wrong, unless of course peer review actually means that prestigious journals generally don’t publish horseshit.

in short: your claim is not only wrong, it is… a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works as a concept, I feel? Maybe not always in practice – there’s always politics sticking their dick into the mix to muddy the waters – but that’s part of what these journals pay and charge for. Prestigious peers. To review papers and generally make sure that nothing they publish is outright bullshit.

now, are they fair prices for knowledge that helps us all is another debate, but suffice to say: going “fuck you I’m gonna find out if you’re wrong” is literally part of the job.

Are you just, like… not that bright? Or is this just a transient phase, a hard night for you?

He seems like he’s as incredulous about his position as the rest of us are. like “Really? Me? fucken really?”

some people are breathtakingly stupid and mental illness is complicated, idk what to tell you fam