HN user
The blog RetractionWatch investigates accusations of problematic papers across scholarly disciplines and tracks superlatives like most retractions and retractions for Nobel Prize Winners.
Posts are published daily on issues ranging from plagiarism, fraud, conflicts of interest, errors, and misconduct more generally.
Take it from an academic like me that peer review in just over a month is rare and a sign of low-quality editorial work at the journal (the exceptions would be the most open, progressive journals like PCI and similar).
The formatting/style and peer review history alone are enough for me to doubt this. Of course, the other users' points about study design and lack of transparency make it even harder to trust the claims.
They're blue because computer scientist Ben Schneiderman made them blue using research from 1985:
" In 1985, a group of students at the University of Maryland, mentored by computer science professor Ben Shneiderman , conducted a series of experiments to study the impact of different hyperlink colors on user experience. They were eager to determine which color would be the most effective in terms of visibility and readability.
The experiments revealed interesting findings. While red highlighting made the links more noticeable, it negatively affected users' ability to read and comprehend the surrounding text. On the other hand, blue emerged as the clear winner. It was dark enough to be visible against a white background and light enough to stand out on a black background. Most importantly, it did not interfere with users' retention of the text's context."
Mozille should really do better research before posting histories like this. It's easy to overlook the impact of academic research in tech.
Source:
Barooah, S. (2023, June 09). Why Were Hyperlinks Chosen To Be Blue? Retrieved from https://www.newspointapp.com/english/tech/why-were-hyperlink...
I solved my RSI with rest, a vertical mouse, and ZSA Moonlanders. I eventually bought one for home use and one for work use with great performance for the past four years. I can’t imagine going back, especially after replacing the key switches to quieter variants.
The split keyboard opens up the middle of my desk to fit an adjustable stand (Parblo and ElevationLab work well). So I can write and draw by hand if I want.
Sorry, but other academic researchers who have analyzed Langer’s work have found many problems invalidating her claims. These studies have not been independently reproduced and are ludicrous: https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2024/10/19/carroll-la...
There are many, many detailed critiques online. PubPeer is just one starting point: https://www.pubpeer.com/search?q=ellen+langer
I would not allow an undergrad psych major to propose such drivel.
I would like to point out for context that the author, Jordan Lasker, is a eugenist derided for shoddy science, falsely using university affiliations, and racist commentary.
I do not write this to contradict particular claims in the article above, but @cremieux should be read cautiously.
Yes, a numerate population as assessed by national averages matters. A more numerate population reasons better about economic policies and may vote more wisely. Numeracy is closely tied to the ability to work in a variety of occupations. If we consider probability and statistics, the implications are especially salient.
Yes, his website shows it. Read his latest update and the footnote on the home page: https://worrydream.com/
This is a great start to an evidence database. The next step should be adding evidence and contextual details explaining why each claim is true, perhaps in a table.
A good model is here: https://www.college.police.uk/research/crime-reduction-toolk...
Now let's see this timeline for how close we are to Harry Potter tech. In some ways, we're closing the gap.
I recently used this archive for a course paper and it only took 1-2 days of training and paperwork to get approved.
I don't strictly need this archive anymore, but I recall when the federal layoffs were first being announced that staff were down about it.
As a first-time archives user, this is a major loss to the research community. I met people who flew in from around the country for various projects, working on their graduate degrees and consulting here.
When I used the facilities, I saw signs in multiple areas about people who were caught stealing records and warnings that the consequences are significant (federal crime). But this action is senseless. Their security is very tight with scanning before entering, restrictions on materials and bags that can be brought upstairs, and people monitoring to ensure that special procedures are followed. These places are understaffed and underappreciated. Funding should increase for these national treasures.
This is a repost of an earlier HN post from months ago...
"Although darkness has long been associated with insecurity, the link remains speculative. I fill the gap by examining the effect of solar eclipses on political violence. Expanding on psychological theories, I hypothesize that eclipse-induced darkness evokes fear, which in turn is misattributed to outgroups, thereby triggering violence. I contrast this argument with a tactical explanation, suggesting that the darkness allows insurgents to secretly kill civilians. I test these hypotheses by exploiting exogenous variations in the dates and locations of solar eclipses for 1997–2022 in Africa. The analysis indicates a spike in violence on the days of solar eclipses. To explore the mechanisms, I examine the initiators and original texts of violent events, weather conditions, ethnic folklore, and individual-level surveys. The analyses consistently support the tactical rather than psychological explanation. These findings warn against assuming that “irrational” African people overreacted to eclipses; insurgents rationally used darkness for their purposes."
Do you have a URL/citation for that? I'd like to use this quote in a paper.
I know someone working on a plugin for that currently.
Yep, but other issues are discussed too. Suspicion is warranted, though signs of errors and fraud require even deeper investigation.
Be careful interpreting this study summary.
The article's peer reviews (on PubPeer) list a few analytic issues that call the findings into question:
https://pubpeer.com/publications/59F515775D10D854ABB7F4B31D4...
He couldn't get it up :)
Perfectly said. Before attempting to solve a problem, it's important to consider the lenses/perspectives and that facts that you'll see nails everywhere with your hammers.
Peer review can be more structured, is already blinded in many cases, and could benefit from regular crowdsourced suggestions from a variety of scholars. In many cases, journals have begun many reform practices like valuing open sharing of materials and code, structured transparency checklists, and opportunities to publish null results. All wonderful advances that don't require hammers.
I'll wait for the Naya Create reviews (naya.tech). I need something more portable with a mouse integrated.
This may seem like bad news, but as a grad student studying evidence synthesis I can say that there is a silver lining here. The quality of studies in systematic inputs is low and even Cochrane's reviews have been critiqued for missing things. It's a big factory that hasn't fundamentally innovated how research is synthesized. There are newer forms of synthesis like realist reviews, meta-modeling, and model-driven meta-analyses (those are just a few examples).
Hopefully this results in some innovation at the conceptual and financial levels. For those who lost their income, they have transferrable skills that would be welcomed in healthtech companies, other governmental groups, and academic positions. It's really not as bad as it seems.
Keep it up! Also, consider adding some data about sustainability (e.g. packaging materials, CO2 footprint, animal ethics, land use, etc.). I'd like to see this scale up.
Interesting idea, but wouldn't it lead to groupthink and prevent outliers from pushing the envelope?
you.com neeva.ai andisearch.com duckduckgo chatGPT
andisearch.com neeva.ai you.com duckduckgo ChatGPT
andisearch.com you.com neeva.ai duckduckgo ChatGPT (use with caution)
Hold off on academia for now. Don't join until you work out your own identity difficulties.
I'm with you. As an introvert, it can be tough to figure out how to build yourself instead of building for someone else.
I'd say explore and start small. Are there anchor points in the arts, fitness/sports, ways to try some fun and local courses? Meetups? It is not going to be quick and easy.
Don't worry about getting a perfect theory of yourself built right away. You will have to try a bunch of things and see what resonates. Become a self-experimenter and keep a diary that you can do back to monthly to figure out which pathways are better to dig into long-term.
As an educational psychologist, there's a lot to love here and I catalog posts like these as examples of expert exposition.
One suggest to Bartosz: breaking one long essay into many smaller pages or hiding content until the viewer has indicated understanding of previous steps will be even more useful (see: https://tigyog.app/d/H7XOvXvC_x/r/goedel-s-first-incompleten...).
Explorable models are a great way to increase engagement and understanding. Beyond that, I would supplement this with highly frequent comprehension questions to check for learning. I bet you'd find a way to make it fun and approachable.
I bought and use two Moonlanders. I’d like future versions to integrate a small trackball and to be wireless. That said, this helped my shoulder and wrist pain tremendously. I recommend it for those with injuries and unique needs. This year, I’m trying the Halmak layout to type even more efficiently.
Pair it with an Evoluent mouse or similar vertical mouse for a great setup.
Author may want to look at scite.ai
It does something similar to what they propose.