@fossilesque@mander.xyz
@fossilesque@mander.xyz avatar

fossilesque

@fossilesque@mander.xyz

image

A lazy cat in human skin, an eldritch being borne of the '90s.

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

fossilesque,
@fossilesque@mander.xyz avatar

Not as far as I am aware,

fossilesque, (edited )
@fossilesque@mander.xyz avatar

I minored in GIS and needed to feed myself before going to grad school haha. Saw the advert while on Indeed. It was an underpaid production job with in house tools so they took anyone that could use a pc. Very chill though, so I didn’t mind the lower wages. A lot of that sort of thing is outsourced now.

fossilesque,
@fossilesque@mander.xyz avatar

Haha no, my stipend ran out.

fossilesque,
@fossilesque@mander.xyz avatar

I wish I was that cool.

fossilesque, (edited )
@fossilesque@mander.xyz avatar

all of it is ai hallucinated incl fake refs

fossilesque,
@fossilesque@mander.xyz avatar

You my people.

fossilesque,
@fossilesque@mander.xyz avatar

I don’t like looking in the mirror.

fossilesque,
@fossilesque@mander.xyz avatar

Same

fossilesque,
@fossilesque@mander.xyz avatar

mander.xyz/post/6490193

fossilesque,
@fossilesque@mander.xyz avatar

www.qfbox.info/4d/vis/01-intro

fossilesque,
@fossilesque@mander.xyz avatar

I have had pretty good luck with it, but also think about considering trying ChatGPT now that it’s got vision. There are now libraries for typed print on transcribus. Worth a shot, since you get 500 free credits.

fossilesque,
@fossilesque@mander.xyz avatar

readcoop.eu/transkribus/ <- Worth a shot.

Also:

fossilesque,
@fossilesque@mander.xyz avatar

Correlation =/= causation. You’re still crazy, like the rest of us. :)

fossilesque,
@fossilesque@mander.xyz avatar

Lmao I think I don’t want to know what I’d actually do on that. It was just such a non-sequitur meme I couldn’t figure a title out. 😅

fossilesque,
@fossilesque@mander.xyz avatar

Sumo?

fossilesque,
@fossilesque@mander.xyz avatar

Found the Aussie.

fossilesque,
@fossilesque@mander.xyz avatar

Good eye. Gonna remove it for now. :)

fossilesque, (edited )
@fossilesque@mander.xyz avatar

This is also a logical fallacy, actually several. False analogy (qualitative vs quantitative) and appeal to authority, namely. There is a practitioner here telling you it’s a placebo (literally a sham medical treatment, that can be useful for secondary effects), wiki classifies it as pseudoscience… Again, even pseudoscientific fields can produce results that appear to be beneficial or effective; however, these results may not be replicable, may be the result of placebo effects, or other biases. No major journal is currently touching this topic as a potential standalone treatment.

I’m not sure what else you want, but I sure hope that you don’t work in the sciences. 😅

Here: …harvard.edu/…/the-power-of-the-placebo-effect “Placebos may make you feel better, but they will not cure you.”

fossilesque, (edited )
@fossilesque@mander.xyz avatar

This isn’t a good journal and the author isn’t an MD. The journal barely has an impact factor. 10 or more is considered very good (extremely reliable). This journal has less than 2; that’s super abysmal. Again, there is a reason major journals (IF of much more than 10) don’t deal with this.

The Impact Factor for a journal is calculated by dividing the number of citations in a year by the total number of articles published in the two previous years. This journal is barely a footnote. For comparison, Nature, one of the best of the best, has an IF of 64.8.

Science is a conversation. This low number means that only one or two articles cited each paper from this entire journal in the last two years, even just in passing. It’s not part of the conversation, and hardly has a seat at the discussion table.

Edit: dyscalculia moment.

fossilesque, (edited )
@fossilesque@mander.xyz avatar

I’m asking you to back yourself with a credible journal. You did not and jumped to anecdote. I’m open to having my mind changed but I want to see actual evidence. This next journal has an impact factor of 2. This is not a great score, especially for medicine. Hell, even Frontiers scores higher. Placebos do work and have utility, by the way, just as the Harvard article I linked said and I’ve repeated over and over. That’s not the issue.

fossilesque, (edited )
@fossilesque@mander.xyz avatar

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor?wprov=sfla1 This is part of how the scientific conversation works, it’s not perfect but good for generalising and mostly reliable. Things that become mainstream parts of the conversation will get more citations, especially as funding will flow those ways, so a lot of the criticisms smooth over. I’m trying to explain how this all works because it’s complicated and valuable to know and very political. Just because someone published something doesn’t make it infallible. There’s really a range of grey because it is a conversation. Having a good journal backing you carries a lot of weight as they rest their reputation on you, multiplying your voice in a way. I like to picture it like a video game multiplier.

PubMed is a search engine for many journals. It’s not one journal.

When you write a paper, you’re not trying to prove something. You’re trying to attack your hypothesis from all angles and disprove it. You want to be wrong because what’s the fun in knowing everything.

fossilesque, (edited )
@fossilesque@mander.xyz avatar

When you find a paper, Google the name of the journal + “impact factor”, and you should find something. Some journals display their metrics with different scores due to complications with the IF system, so you’ll need to judge those accordingly but they should come up with the same search keywords. There should be a body of literature with higher scores, not just single papers too. Also, look up your authors and see if this is actually something they’re qualified for. This all shows the idea has been established and accepted as part of the mainstream conversation. This is the academic “sniff test.”

The problem with hypnosis isn’t the absence of evidence, it’s the lack of significant effects (efficacy), notably as a standalone treatment. Most sciences measure this with a variant of a p-value. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value?wprov=sfla1 Note that interpretations of p-values are susceptible to placebo effects.

It’s also kind of important that the research is relatively newer because of some metascience trends have changed our understanding of things and we have different standards now.

fossilesque,
@fossilesque@mander.xyz avatar

I ONLY SHOUT WHEN WEBSITES DON’T USE THEIR HEADLINES AS WEBPAGE TITLES AND HAVE SHITE MODERN WEB INTERFACES.

fossilesque,
@fossilesque@mander.xyz avatar

I’d argue it’s a literary novel. Maybe several.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • localhost
  • All magazines
    •
    Loading…
    Loading the web debug toolbar…
    Attempt #