post_id
stringlengths 5
7
| domain
stringclasses 18
values | upvote_ratio
float64 0.5
1
| history
stringlengths 22
39.2k
| c_root_id_A
stringlengths 7
7
| c_root_id_B
stringlengths 7
7
| created_at_utc_A
int64 1.28B
1.67B
| created_at_utc_B
int64 1.28B
1.67B
| score_A
int64 2
43.5k
| score_B
int64 2
43.2k
| human_ref_A
stringlengths 0
10.7k
| human_ref_B
stringlengths 0
10.8k
| labels
int64 0
1
| seconds_difference
float64 0
145M
| score_ratio
float64 1
3.72k
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2hv7hp | i2gawdm | 1,648,507,642 | 1,648,483,836 | 67 | 41 | Something along the lines of "We would like to thank reviewer 2 for their insightful and constructive comments, which we feel have improved the manuscript" is a lovely example of academic jargon that means: "We resent reviewer 2 and their inane comments, but we have grudgingly made some token changes that they asked for in the hope that it satisfies their ego enough to accept the resubmission of this paper, which was already perfectly good without us adding a sentence reference the suggested citation, which was almost certainly written by reviewer 2." | Saying "the way(s) in which" instead of "how." This sentence structure: "It's not that [x]; rather, [y]. Indeed, [elaboration on y]." Neither is exactly Problematic or even objectionable, they're just so ubiquitous in my corner of academia they drive me crazy. All the words in the famously fucky English language and people really can't come up with anything else?? Oy. | 1 | 23,806 | 1.634146 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2ghly0 | i2hv7hp | 1,648,486,501 | 1,648,507,642 | 38 | 67 | "Academic incest" is a fun term | Something along the lines of "We would like to thank reviewer 2 for their insightful and constructive comments, which we feel have improved the manuscript" is a lovely example of academic jargon that means: "We resent reviewer 2 and their inane comments, but we have grudgingly made some token changes that they asked for in the hope that it satisfies their ego enough to accept the resubmission of this paper, which was already perfectly good without us adding a sentence reference the suggested citation, which was almost certainly written by reviewer 2." | 0 | 21,141 | 1.763158 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2fzyl1 | i2hv7hp | 1,648,479,361 | 1,648,507,642 | 27 | 67 | Capital (T)ruth | Something along the lines of "We would like to thank reviewer 2 for their insightful and constructive comments, which we feel have improved the manuscript" is a lovely example of academic jargon that means: "We resent reviewer 2 and their inane comments, but we have grudgingly made some token changes that they asked for in the hope that it satisfies their ego enough to accept the resubmission of this paper, which was already perfectly good without us adding a sentence reference the suggested citation, which was almost certainly written by reviewer 2." | 0 | 28,281 | 2.481481 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2hv7hp | i2gby0t | 1,648,507,642 | 1,648,484,258 | 67 | 28 | Something along the lines of "We would like to thank reviewer 2 for their insightful and constructive comments, which we feel have improved the manuscript" is a lovely example of academic jargon that means: "We resent reviewer 2 and their inane comments, but we have grudgingly made some token changes that they asked for in the hope that it satisfies their ego enough to accept the resubmission of this paper, which was already perfectly good without us adding a sentence reference the suggested citation, which was almost certainly written by reviewer 2." | In my field, anthro / sts: “can you unpack X or Y further...” / “we also have to complicate X or Y” / “how is this entangled with [loosely related other thing” | 1 | 23,384 | 2.392857 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2g4n7a | i2hv7hp | 1,648,481,316 | 1,648,507,642 | 24 | 67 | my computer science advisor always ask me to "ping" someone he's trying to reach out | Something along the lines of "We would like to thank reviewer 2 for their insightful and constructive comments, which we feel have improved the manuscript" is a lovely example of academic jargon that means: "We resent reviewer 2 and their inane comments, but we have grudgingly made some token changes that they asked for in the hope that it satisfies their ego enough to accept the resubmission of this paper, which was already perfectly good without us adding a sentence reference the suggested citation, which was almost certainly written by reviewer 2." | 0 | 26,326 | 2.791667 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2h2wus | i2hv7hp | 1,648,495,284 | 1,648,507,642 | 22 | 67 | When looking at archives of Greek vases I enjoy seeing "Nonsense Inscriptions" among the list of features. | Something along the lines of "We would like to thank reviewer 2 for their insightful and constructive comments, which we feel have improved the manuscript" is a lovely example of academic jargon that means: "We resent reviewer 2 and their inane comments, but we have grudgingly made some token changes that they asked for in the hope that it satisfies their ego enough to accept the resubmission of this paper, which was already perfectly good without us adding a sentence reference the suggested citation, which was almost certainly written by reviewer 2." | 0 | 12,358 | 3.045455 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2hv7hp | i2fqf6f | 1,648,507,642 | 1,648,475,160 | 67 | 23 | Something along the lines of "We would like to thank reviewer 2 for their insightful and constructive comments, which we feel have improved the manuscript" is a lovely example of academic jargon that means: "We resent reviewer 2 and their inane comments, but we have grudgingly made some token changes that they asked for in the hope that it satisfies their ego enough to accept the resubmission of this paper, which was already perfectly good without us adding a sentence reference the suggested citation, which was almost certainly written by reviewer 2." | The best name for a term I've seen yet is 'The Oracle Inequality' in machine learning. It's the property that means a model collapses to choosing the (most) correct inputs when faced with too many variables. (i.e it chooses p* when p>n) | 1 | 32,482 | 2.913043 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2hv7hp | i2glrts | 1,648,507,642 | 1,648,488,168 | 67 | 21 | Something along the lines of "We would like to thank reviewer 2 for their insightful and constructive comments, which we feel have improved the manuscript" is a lovely example of academic jargon that means: "We resent reviewer 2 and their inane comments, but we have grudgingly made some token changes that they asked for in the hope that it satisfies their ego enough to accept the resubmission of this paper, which was already perfectly good without us adding a sentence reference the suggested citation, which was almost certainly written by reviewer 2." | In economics, describing a super complicated quantitative model that takes ages to solve as "tractable" because it could have been even worse. | 1 | 19,474 | 3.190476 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2hv7hp | i2gc2f5 | 1,648,507,642 | 1,648,484,306 | 67 | 20 | Something along the lines of "We would like to thank reviewer 2 for their insightful and constructive comments, which we feel have improved the manuscript" is a lovely example of academic jargon that means: "We resent reviewer 2 and their inane comments, but we have grudgingly made some token changes that they asked for in the hope that it satisfies their ego enough to accept the resubmission of this paper, which was already perfectly good without us adding a sentence reference the suggested citation, which was almost certainly written by reviewer 2." | My favorite things are the fact that "Large Woody Debris" and "Drunken Trees" are completely acceptable scientific terms in fluvial geomorphology and dendrochronology. Also, "Bed Material" (fluvial sediments) is pretty great to talk about. | 1 | 23,336 | 3.35 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2hv7hp | i2h8fnk | 1,648,507,642 | 1,648,497,555 | 67 | 16 | Something along the lines of "We would like to thank reviewer 2 for their insightful and constructive comments, which we feel have improved the manuscript" is a lovely example of academic jargon that means: "We resent reviewer 2 and their inane comments, but we have grudgingly made some token changes that they asked for in the hope that it satisfies their ego enough to accept the resubmission of this paper, which was already perfectly good without us adding a sentence reference the suggested citation, which was almost certainly written by reviewer 2." | Unity instead of one! Maybe I’m just not mathy enough to understand why we do this? | 1 | 10,087 | 4.1875 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2hr3de | i2hv7hp | 1,648,505,643 | 1,648,507,642 | 13 | 67 | “Sacrificed” (or sac’d) as another way to say “euthanized.” Depending on your POV it’s either an acknowledgment of the sanctity of life and the loss that occurs during the course of research, or an acknowledgment that success of experiments feel like they are dictated by a random number generator in the sky. | Something along the lines of "We would like to thank reviewer 2 for their insightful and constructive comments, which we feel have improved the manuscript" is a lovely example of academic jargon that means: "We resent reviewer 2 and their inane comments, but we have grudgingly made some token changes that they asked for in the hope that it satisfies their ego enough to accept the resubmission of this paper, which was already perfectly good without us adding a sentence reference the suggested citation, which was almost certainly written by reviewer 2." | 0 | 1,999 | 5.153846 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2gvjjr | i2hv7hp | 1,648,492,205 | 1,648,507,642 | 13 | 67 | the ways in which | Something along the lines of "We would like to thank reviewer 2 for their insightful and constructive comments, which we feel have improved the manuscript" is a lovely example of academic jargon that means: "We resent reviewer 2 and their inane comments, but we have grudgingly made some token changes that they asked for in the hope that it satisfies their ego enough to accept the resubmission of this paper, which was already perfectly good without us adding a sentence reference the suggested citation, which was almost certainly written by reviewer 2." | 0 | 15,437 | 5.153846 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2fx8sx | i2hv7hp | 1,648,478,212 | 1,648,507,642 | 11 | 67 | (re) | Something along the lines of "We would like to thank reviewer 2 for their insightful and constructive comments, which we feel have improved the manuscript" is a lovely example of academic jargon that means: "We resent reviewer 2 and their inane comments, but we have grudgingly made some token changes that they asked for in the hope that it satisfies their ego enough to accept the resubmission of this paper, which was already perfectly good without us adding a sentence reference the suggested citation, which was almost certainly written by reviewer 2." | 0 | 29,430 | 6.090909 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2hv7hp | i2gxqv8 | 1,648,507,642 | 1,648,493,133 | 67 | 8 | Something along the lines of "We would like to thank reviewer 2 for their insightful and constructive comments, which we feel have improved the manuscript" is a lovely example of academic jargon that means: "We resent reviewer 2 and their inane comments, but we have grudgingly made some token changes that they asked for in the hope that it satisfies their ego enough to accept the resubmission of this paper, which was already perfectly good without us adding a sentence reference the suggested citation, which was almost certainly written by reviewer 2." | Mmhmmmm, let's workshop that a bit. Or, one of my favourites. Mmmm, yea. Okay. We've got a draft here! Good, good. | 1 | 14,509 | 8.375 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2fzyl1 | i2g6l4s | 1,648,479,361 | 1,648,482,105 | 27 | 64 | Capital (T)ruth | I have to suppress a sophomoric giggle when I see something from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. One point in my PhD defense was an argument between committee members on “significant” vs “statistically significant.” | 0 | 2,744 | 2.37037 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2g4n7a | i2g6l4s | 1,648,481,316 | 1,648,482,105 | 24 | 64 | my computer science advisor always ask me to "ping" someone he's trying to reach out | I have to suppress a sophomoric giggle when I see something from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. One point in my PhD defense was an argument between committee members on “significant” vs “statistically significant.” | 0 | 789 | 2.666667 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2g6l4s | i2fqf6f | 1,648,482,105 | 1,648,475,160 | 64 | 23 | I have to suppress a sophomoric giggle when I see something from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. One point in my PhD defense was an argument between committee members on “significant” vs “statistically significant.” | The best name for a term I've seen yet is 'The Oracle Inequality' in machine learning. It's the property that means a model collapses to choosing the (most) correct inputs when faced with too many variables. (i.e it chooses p* when p>n) | 1 | 6,945 | 2.782609 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2fx8sx | i2g6l4s | 1,648,478,212 | 1,648,482,105 | 11 | 64 | (re) | I have to suppress a sophomoric giggle when I see something from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. One point in my PhD defense was an argument between committee members on “significant” vs “statistically significant.” | 0 | 3,893 | 5.818182 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2gawdm | i2gr5cq | 1,648,483,836 | 1,648,490,379 | 41 | 50 | Saying "the way(s) in which" instead of "how." This sentence structure: "It's not that [x]; rather, [y]. Indeed, [elaboration on y]." Neither is exactly Problematic or even objectionable, they're just so ubiquitous in my corner of academia they drive me crazy. All the words in the famously fucky English language and people really can't come up with anything else?? Oy. | "Is that an epistemological or ontological take on that?" No one knows what those are, good grief. | 0 | 6,543 | 1.219512 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2ghly0 | i2gr5cq | 1,648,486,501 | 1,648,490,379 | 38 | 50 | "Academic incest" is a fun term | "Is that an epistemological or ontological take on that?" No one knows what those are, good grief. | 0 | 3,878 | 1.315789 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2gr5cq | i2fzyl1 | 1,648,490,379 | 1,648,479,361 | 50 | 27 | "Is that an epistemological or ontological take on that?" No one knows what those are, good grief. | Capital (T)ruth | 1 | 11,018 | 1.851852 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2gr5cq | i2gby0t | 1,648,490,379 | 1,648,484,258 | 50 | 28 | "Is that an epistemological or ontological take on that?" No one knows what those are, good grief. | In my field, anthro / sts: “can you unpack X or Y further...” / “we also have to complicate X or Y” / “how is this entangled with [loosely related other thing” | 1 | 6,121 | 1.785714 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2g4n7a | i2gr5cq | 1,648,481,316 | 1,648,490,379 | 24 | 50 | my computer science advisor always ask me to "ping" someone he's trying to reach out | "Is that an epistemological or ontological take on that?" No one knows what those are, good grief. | 0 | 9,063 | 2.083333 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2gr5cq | i2fqf6f | 1,648,490,379 | 1,648,475,160 | 50 | 23 | "Is that an epistemological or ontological take on that?" No one knows what those are, good grief. | The best name for a term I've seen yet is 'The Oracle Inequality' in machine learning. It's the property that means a model collapses to choosing the (most) correct inputs when faced with too many variables. (i.e it chooses p* when p>n) | 1 | 15,219 | 2.173913 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2glrts | i2gr5cq | 1,648,488,168 | 1,648,490,379 | 21 | 50 | In economics, describing a super complicated quantitative model that takes ages to solve as "tractable" because it could have been even worse. | "Is that an epistemological or ontological take on that?" No one knows what those are, good grief. | 0 | 2,211 | 2.380952 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2gr5cq | i2gc2f5 | 1,648,490,379 | 1,648,484,306 | 50 | 20 | "Is that an epistemological or ontological take on that?" No one knows what those are, good grief. | My favorite things are the fact that "Large Woody Debris" and "Drunken Trees" are completely acceptable scientific terms in fluvial geomorphology and dendrochronology. Also, "Bed Material" (fluvial sediments) is pretty great to talk about. | 1 | 6,073 | 2.5 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2fx8sx | i2gr5cq | 1,648,478,212 | 1,648,490,379 | 11 | 50 | (re) | "Is that an epistemological or ontological take on that?" No one knows what those are, good grief. | 0 | 12,167 | 4.545455 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2h0k5y | i2gawdm | 1,648,494,301 | 1,648,483,836 | 43 | 41 | “an adequately-powered, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized trial” | Saying "the way(s) in which" instead of "how." This sentence structure: "It's not that [x]; rather, [y]. Indeed, [elaboration on y]." Neither is exactly Problematic or even objectionable, they're just so ubiquitous in my corner of academia they drive me crazy. All the words in the famously fucky English language and people really can't come up with anything else?? Oy. | 1 | 10,465 | 1.04878 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2h0k5y | i2ghly0 | 1,648,494,301 | 1,648,486,501 | 43 | 38 | “an adequately-powered, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized trial” | "Academic incest" is a fun term | 1 | 7,800 | 1.131579 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2fzyl1 | i2h0k5y | 1,648,479,361 | 1,648,494,301 | 27 | 43 | Capital (T)ruth | “an adequately-powered, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized trial” | 0 | 14,940 | 1.592593 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2gby0t | i2h0k5y | 1,648,484,258 | 1,648,494,301 | 28 | 43 | In my field, anthro / sts: “can you unpack X or Y further...” / “we also have to complicate X or Y” / “how is this entangled with [loosely related other thing” | “an adequately-powered, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized trial” | 0 | 10,043 | 1.535714 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2g4n7a | i2h0k5y | 1,648,481,316 | 1,648,494,301 | 24 | 43 | my computer science advisor always ask me to "ping" someone he's trying to reach out | “an adequately-powered, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized trial” | 0 | 12,985 | 1.791667 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2fqf6f | i2h0k5y | 1,648,475,160 | 1,648,494,301 | 23 | 43 | The best name for a term I've seen yet is 'The Oracle Inequality' in machine learning. It's the property that means a model collapses to choosing the (most) correct inputs when faced with too many variables. (i.e it chooses p* when p>n) | “an adequately-powered, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized trial” | 0 | 19,141 | 1.869565 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2h0k5y | i2glrts | 1,648,494,301 | 1,648,488,168 | 43 | 21 | “an adequately-powered, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized trial” | In economics, describing a super complicated quantitative model that takes ages to solve as "tractable" because it could have been even worse. | 1 | 6,133 | 2.047619 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2h0k5y | i2gc2f5 | 1,648,494,301 | 1,648,484,306 | 43 | 20 | “an adequately-powered, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized trial” | My favorite things are the fact that "Large Woody Debris" and "Drunken Trees" are completely acceptable scientific terms in fluvial geomorphology and dendrochronology. Also, "Bed Material" (fluvial sediments) is pretty great to talk about. | 1 | 9,995 | 2.15 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2h0k5y | i2gvjjr | 1,648,494,301 | 1,648,492,205 | 43 | 13 | “an adequately-powered, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized trial” | the ways in which | 1 | 2,096 | 3.307692 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2fx8sx | i2h0k5y | 1,648,478,212 | 1,648,494,301 | 11 | 43 | (re) | “an adequately-powered, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized trial” | 0 | 16,089 | 3.909091 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2gxqv8 | i2h0k5y | 1,648,493,133 | 1,648,494,301 | 8 | 43 | Mmhmmmm, let's workshop that a bit. Or, one of my favourites. Mmmm, yea. Okay. We've got a draft here! Good, good. | “an adequately-powered, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized trial” | 0 | 1,168 | 5.375 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2gawdm | i2fzyl1 | 1,648,483,836 | 1,648,479,361 | 41 | 27 | Saying "the way(s) in which" instead of "how." This sentence structure: "It's not that [x]; rather, [y]. Indeed, [elaboration on y]." Neither is exactly Problematic or even objectionable, they're just so ubiquitous in my corner of academia they drive me crazy. All the words in the famously fucky English language and people really can't come up with anything else?? Oy. | Capital (T)ruth | 1 | 4,475 | 1.518519 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2gawdm | i2g4n7a | 1,648,483,836 | 1,648,481,316 | 41 | 24 | Saying "the way(s) in which" instead of "how." This sentence structure: "It's not that [x]; rather, [y]. Indeed, [elaboration on y]." Neither is exactly Problematic or even objectionable, they're just so ubiquitous in my corner of academia they drive me crazy. All the words in the famously fucky English language and people really can't come up with anything else?? Oy. | my computer science advisor always ask me to "ping" someone he's trying to reach out | 1 | 2,520 | 1.708333 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2gawdm | i2fqf6f | 1,648,483,836 | 1,648,475,160 | 41 | 23 | Saying "the way(s) in which" instead of "how." This sentence structure: "It's not that [x]; rather, [y]. Indeed, [elaboration on y]." Neither is exactly Problematic or even objectionable, they're just so ubiquitous in my corner of academia they drive me crazy. All the words in the famously fucky English language and people really can't come up with anything else?? Oy. | The best name for a term I've seen yet is 'The Oracle Inequality' in machine learning. It's the property that means a model collapses to choosing the (most) correct inputs when faced with too many variables. (i.e it chooses p* when p>n) | 1 | 8,676 | 1.782609 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2fx8sx | i2gawdm | 1,648,478,212 | 1,648,483,836 | 11 | 41 | (re) | Saying "the way(s) in which" instead of "how." This sentence structure: "It's not that [x]; rather, [y]. Indeed, [elaboration on y]." Neither is exactly Problematic or even objectionable, they're just so ubiquitous in my corner of academia they drive me crazy. All the words in the famously fucky English language and people really can't come up with anything else?? Oy. | 0 | 5,624 | 3.727273 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2fzyl1 | i2ghly0 | 1,648,479,361 | 1,648,486,501 | 27 | 38 | Capital (T)ruth | "Academic incest" is a fun term | 0 | 7,140 | 1.407407 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2ghly0 | i2gby0t | 1,648,486,501 | 1,648,484,258 | 38 | 28 | "Academic incest" is a fun term | In my field, anthro / sts: “can you unpack X or Y further...” / “we also have to complicate X or Y” / “how is this entangled with [loosely related other thing” | 1 | 2,243 | 1.357143 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2ghly0 | i2g4n7a | 1,648,486,501 | 1,648,481,316 | 38 | 24 | "Academic incest" is a fun term | my computer science advisor always ask me to "ping" someone he's trying to reach out | 1 | 5,185 | 1.583333 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2fqf6f | i2ghly0 | 1,648,475,160 | 1,648,486,501 | 23 | 38 | The best name for a term I've seen yet is 'The Oracle Inequality' in machine learning. It's the property that means a model collapses to choosing the (most) correct inputs when faced with too many variables. (i.e it chooses p* when p>n) | "Academic incest" is a fun term | 0 | 11,341 | 1.652174 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2gc2f5 | i2ghly0 | 1,648,484,306 | 1,648,486,501 | 20 | 38 | My favorite things are the fact that "Large Woody Debris" and "Drunken Trees" are completely acceptable scientific terms in fluvial geomorphology and dendrochronology. Also, "Bed Material" (fluvial sediments) is pretty great to talk about. | "Academic incest" is a fun term | 0 | 2,195 | 1.9 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2fx8sx | i2ghly0 | 1,648,478,212 | 1,648,486,501 | 11 | 38 | (re) | "Academic incest" is a fun term | 0 | 8,289 | 3.454545 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2fzyl1 | i2gby0t | 1,648,479,361 | 1,648,484,258 | 27 | 28 | Capital (T)ruth | In my field, anthro / sts: “can you unpack X or Y further...” / “we also have to complicate X or Y” / “how is this entangled with [loosely related other thing” | 0 | 4,897 | 1.037037 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2fqf6f | i2fzyl1 | 1,648,475,160 | 1,648,479,361 | 23 | 27 | The best name for a term I've seen yet is 'The Oracle Inequality' in machine learning. It's the property that means a model collapses to choosing the (most) correct inputs when faced with too many variables. (i.e it chooses p* when p>n) | Capital (T)ruth | 0 | 4,201 | 1.173913 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2fzyl1 | i2fx8sx | 1,648,479,361 | 1,648,478,212 | 27 | 11 | Capital (T)ruth | (re) | 1 | 1,149 | 2.454545 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2gby0t | i2g4n7a | 1,648,484,258 | 1,648,481,316 | 28 | 24 | In my field, anthro / sts: “can you unpack X or Y further...” / “we also have to complicate X or Y” / “how is this entangled with [loosely related other thing” | my computer science advisor always ask me to "ping" someone he's trying to reach out | 1 | 2,942 | 1.166667 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2gby0t | i2fqf6f | 1,648,484,258 | 1,648,475,160 | 28 | 23 | In my field, anthro / sts: “can you unpack X or Y further...” / “we also have to complicate X or Y” / “how is this entangled with [loosely related other thing” | The best name for a term I've seen yet is 'The Oracle Inequality' in machine learning. It's the property that means a model collapses to choosing the (most) correct inputs when faced with too many variables. (i.e it chooses p* when p>n) | 1 | 9,098 | 1.217391 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2gby0t | i2fx8sx | 1,648,484,258 | 1,648,478,212 | 28 | 11 | In my field, anthro / sts: “can you unpack X or Y further...” / “we also have to complicate X or Y” / “how is this entangled with [loosely related other thing” | (re) | 1 | 6,046 | 2.545455 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2g4n7a | i2fqf6f | 1,648,481,316 | 1,648,475,160 | 24 | 23 | my computer science advisor always ask me to "ping" someone he's trying to reach out | The best name for a term I've seen yet is 'The Oracle Inequality' in machine learning. It's the property that means a model collapses to choosing the (most) correct inputs when faced with too many variables. (i.e it chooses p* when p>n) | 1 | 6,156 | 1.043478 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2fx8sx | i2g4n7a | 1,648,478,212 | 1,648,481,316 | 11 | 24 | (re) | my computer science advisor always ask me to "ping" someone he's trying to reach out | 0 | 3,104 | 2.181818 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2h2wus | i2glrts | 1,648,495,284 | 1,648,488,168 | 22 | 21 | When looking at archives of Greek vases I enjoy seeing "Nonsense Inscriptions" among the list of features. | In economics, describing a super complicated quantitative model that takes ages to solve as "tractable" because it could have been even worse. | 1 | 7,116 | 1.047619 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2gc2f5 | i2h2wus | 1,648,484,306 | 1,648,495,284 | 20 | 22 | My favorite things are the fact that "Large Woody Debris" and "Drunken Trees" are completely acceptable scientific terms in fluvial geomorphology and dendrochronology. Also, "Bed Material" (fluvial sediments) is pretty great to talk about. | When looking at archives of Greek vases I enjoy seeing "Nonsense Inscriptions" among the list of features. | 0 | 10,978 | 1.1 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2h2wus | i2gvjjr | 1,648,495,284 | 1,648,492,205 | 22 | 13 | When looking at archives of Greek vases I enjoy seeing "Nonsense Inscriptions" among the list of features. | the ways in which | 1 | 3,079 | 1.692308 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2h2wus | i2fx8sx | 1,648,495,284 | 1,648,478,212 | 22 | 11 | When looking at archives of Greek vases I enjoy seeing "Nonsense Inscriptions" among the list of features. | (re) | 1 | 17,072 | 2 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2h2wus | i2gxqv8 | 1,648,495,284 | 1,648,493,133 | 22 | 8 | When looking at archives of Greek vases I enjoy seeing "Nonsense Inscriptions" among the list of features. | Mmhmmmm, let's workshop that a bit. Or, one of my favourites. Mmmm, yea. Okay. We've got a draft here! Good, good. | 1 | 2,151 | 2.75 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2glrts | i2gc2f5 | 1,648,488,168 | 1,648,484,306 | 21 | 20 | In economics, describing a super complicated quantitative model that takes ages to solve as "tractable" because it could have been even worse. | My favorite things are the fact that "Large Woody Debris" and "Drunken Trees" are completely acceptable scientific terms in fluvial geomorphology and dendrochronology. Also, "Bed Material" (fluvial sediments) is pretty great to talk about. | 1 | 3,862 | 1.05 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2glrts | i2fx8sx | 1,648,488,168 | 1,648,478,212 | 21 | 11 | In economics, describing a super complicated quantitative model that takes ages to solve as "tractable" because it could have been even worse. | (re) | 1 | 9,956 | 1.909091 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2fx8sx | i2gc2f5 | 1,648,478,212 | 1,648,484,306 | 11 | 20 | (re) | My favorite things are the fact that "Large Woody Debris" and "Drunken Trees" are completely acceptable scientific terms in fluvial geomorphology and dendrochronology. Also, "Bed Material" (fluvial sediments) is pretty great to talk about. | 0 | 6,094 | 1.818182 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2h8fnk | i2gvjjr | 1,648,497,555 | 1,648,492,205 | 16 | 13 | Unity instead of one! Maybe I’m just not mathy enough to understand why we do this? | the ways in which | 1 | 5,350 | 1.230769 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2h8fnk | i2fx8sx | 1,648,497,555 | 1,648,478,212 | 16 | 11 | Unity instead of one! Maybe I’m just not mathy enough to understand why we do this? | (re) | 1 | 19,343 | 1.454545 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2h8fnk | i2gxqv8 | 1,648,497,555 | 1,648,493,133 | 16 | 8 | Unity instead of one! Maybe I’m just not mathy enough to understand why we do this? | Mmhmmmm, let's workshop that a bit. Or, one of my favourites. Mmmm, yea. Okay. We've got a draft here! Good, good. | 1 | 4,422 | 2 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2hr3de | i2fx8sx | 1,648,505,643 | 1,648,478,212 | 13 | 11 | “Sacrificed” (or sac’d) as another way to say “euthanized.” Depending on your POV it’s either an acknowledgment of the sanctity of life and the loss that occurs during the course of research, or an acknowledgment that success of experiments feel like they are dictated by a random number generator in the sky. | (re) | 1 | 27,431 | 1.181818 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2gxqv8 | i2hr3de | 1,648,493,133 | 1,648,505,643 | 8 | 13 | Mmhmmmm, let's workshop that a bit. Or, one of my favourites. Mmmm, yea. Okay. We've got a draft here! Good, good. | “Sacrificed” (or sac’d) as another way to say “euthanized.” Depending on your POV it’s either an acknowledgment of the sanctity of life and the loss that occurs during the course of research, or an acknowledgment that success of experiments feel like they are dictated by a random number generator in the sky. | 0 | 12,510 | 1.625 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2fx8sx | i2gvjjr | 1,648,478,212 | 1,648,492,205 | 11 | 13 | (re) | the ways in which | 0 | 13,993 | 1.181818 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2idno4 | i2ihn5a | 1,648,516,920 | 1,648,518,839 | 9 | 11 | I've gotten pretty decent at improvising academic gobbledygook at parties. "In probing the discourses surrounding subalternities in post-colonial contexts, we aim to resituate the traditional, gendered histories on this topic into new narratives that draw from recent paradigmatic shifts, which underscore, above all, the significant role of spatial and temporal realities in shaping our understanding of events." | I love when philosophers mention something without explaining it in a paper and say, “I’ll leave this as an exercise to the reader” | 0 | 1,919 | 1.222222 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2ihn5a | i2gxqv8 | 1,648,518,839 | 1,648,493,133 | 11 | 8 | I love when philosophers mention something without explaining it in a paper and say, “I’ll leave this as an exercise to the reader” | Mmhmmmm, let's workshop that a bit. Or, one of my favourites. Mmmm, yea. Okay. We've got a draft here! Good, good. | 1 | 25,706 | 1.375 |
tq8rbf | askacademia_train | 0.97 | What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. | i2idno4 | i2gxqv8 | 1,648,516,920 | 1,648,493,133 | 9 | 8 | I've gotten pretty decent at improvising academic gobbledygook at parties. "In probing the discourses surrounding subalternities in post-colonial contexts, we aim to resituate the traditional, gendered histories on this topic into new narratives that draw from recent paradigmatic shifts, which underscore, above all, the significant role of spatial and temporal realities in shaping our understanding of events." | Mmhmmmm, let's workshop that a bit. Or, one of my favourites. Mmmm, yea. Okay. We've got a draft here! Good, good. | 1 | 23,787 | 1.125 |
e1r2be | askacademia_train | 0.95 | What do you all think of Neil deGrasse Tyson? This is a super random question but was just curious what other people in academia thought. Lately it seems like he goes on Twitter and tries to rain on everybody's parade with science. While I can understand having this attitude to pseudo-sciency things, he appears to speak about things he can't possibly be that extensively experienced in as if he's an expert of all things science. I really appreciate what he's done in his career and he's extremely gifted when it comes to outreach and making science interesting to the general public. However, from what I can tell he has a somewhat average record in research (although he was able to get into some top schools which is a feat in and of itself). I guess people just make him out to be a genius but to me it seems like there are probably thousands of less famous people out there who are equally accomplished? | f8rcllq | f8rcw9a | 1,574,737,132 | 1,574,737,318 | 32 | 234 | He is great at that part of science that is often overlooked: outreach. And I think that outreach is fundamental part of the economics of research. At the end, most of the hardcore theoretical science is funded by the government, aka the taxpayer, so it is very alarming, in my opinion, when they have little to no idea of what science is doing or what is the purpose. As the gap between frontier knowledge and the average joe widens, plus the current populist wave, I can see a future where the people start asking, wait, why are we funding all of these pretentious people that won't even take time to explain themselves? Luckily there are people like Neil deGrasse. | I think he is just so caught up in always playing the role of the educator that he doesn't have discussions with people, he just "tells them how it is" as if he knows literally everything, even on controversial topics on politics or quantum physics where he certainly is not an expert. This has led him to be commonly perceived as a pretentious and condescending douche who just relentlessly talks at/over someone instead of having a discussion. He just is such an unpleasant person to listen to - like when he was on JRE last time: https://youtu.be/egIKAK3SuiE. This is not to say that he isn't a great educator - he certainly has been a strong and beneficial promoter of scientific literacy in general. It just stands out to me that a lot of people think he is a dick because of his interviews. | 0 | 186 | 7.3125 |
e1r2be | askacademia_train | 0.95 | What do you all think of Neil deGrasse Tyson? This is a super random question but was just curious what other people in academia thought. Lately it seems like he goes on Twitter and tries to rain on everybody's parade with science. While I can understand having this attitude to pseudo-sciency things, he appears to speak about things he can't possibly be that extensively experienced in as if he's an expert of all things science. I really appreciate what he's done in his career and he's extremely gifted when it comes to outreach and making science interesting to the general public. However, from what I can tell he has a somewhat average record in research (although he was able to get into some top schools which is a feat in and of itself). I guess people just make him out to be a genius but to me it seems like there are probably thousands of less famous people out there who are equally accomplished? | f8rj7gg | f8rdyq0 | 1,574,741,880 | 1,574,738,035 | 116 | 35 | Its funny until this post I thought my feelings about Neil were uncommon. He comes off as a complete narcissist which is doubly bad when he is (frequently) talking about shit he doesn't understand. My favorite example is when he mentioned to Joe Rogan that there are multiple sizes of infinity which is technically correct. Then he went on to "explain" several examples of this, each of which was completely wrong and/or utter nonsense. | I remember he spoke about Columbus's discovery of America on the JRE as if it were a positive for the the Native Americans employing some strange pseudo scientific logic. That the indigenous people's DNA was too limited, and they needed to be put back in contact with the rest of humanity or some nonsense. I think that he is neither an expert on genetics, nor the history of New World colonization. So I wonder he felt so comfortable in taking on such a polemical topic in such a flippant manner. | 1 | 3,845 | 3.314286 |
e1r2be | askacademia_train | 0.95 | What do you all think of Neil deGrasse Tyson? This is a super random question but was just curious what other people in academia thought. Lately it seems like he goes on Twitter and tries to rain on everybody's parade with science. While I can understand having this attitude to pseudo-sciency things, he appears to speak about things he can't possibly be that extensively experienced in as if he's an expert of all things science. I really appreciate what he's done in his career and he's extremely gifted when it comes to outreach and making science interesting to the general public. However, from what I can tell he has a somewhat average record in research (although he was able to get into some top schools which is a feat in and of itself). I guess people just make him out to be a genius but to me it seems like there are probably thousands of less famous people out there who are equally accomplished? | f8rcllq | f8rj7gg | 1,574,737,132 | 1,574,741,880 | 32 | 116 | He is great at that part of science that is often overlooked: outreach. And I think that outreach is fundamental part of the economics of research. At the end, most of the hardcore theoretical science is funded by the government, aka the taxpayer, so it is very alarming, in my opinion, when they have little to no idea of what science is doing or what is the purpose. As the gap between frontier knowledge and the average joe widens, plus the current populist wave, I can see a future where the people start asking, wait, why are we funding all of these pretentious people that won't even take time to explain themselves? Luckily there are people like Neil deGrasse. | Its funny until this post I thought my feelings about Neil were uncommon. He comes off as a complete narcissist which is doubly bad when he is (frequently) talking about shit he doesn't understand. My favorite example is when he mentioned to Joe Rogan that there are multiple sizes of infinity which is technically correct. Then he went on to "explain" several examples of this, each of which was completely wrong and/or utter nonsense. | 0 | 4,748 | 3.625 |
e1r2be | askacademia_train | 0.95 | What do you all think of Neil deGrasse Tyson? This is a super random question but was just curious what other people in academia thought. Lately it seems like he goes on Twitter and tries to rain on everybody's parade with science. While I can understand having this attitude to pseudo-sciency things, he appears to speak about things he can't possibly be that extensively experienced in as if he's an expert of all things science. I really appreciate what he's done in his career and he's extremely gifted when it comes to outreach and making science interesting to the general public. However, from what I can tell he has a somewhat average record in research (although he was able to get into some top schools which is a feat in and of itself). I guess people just make him out to be a genius but to me it seems like there are probably thousands of less famous people out there who are equally accomplished? | f8rj38s | f8rj7gg | 1,574,741,781 | 1,574,741,880 | 12 | 116 | Here’s my take on it: he’s become dogmatic about science. Kind of like religious folk who proselytize their viewpoint and have no room for the understandings of life from different shoes. Unwilling to listen and respect, rather just talking at you, self-assured of their righteous beliefs. I see Neil DeGrasee Tyson like this and that’s why I can’t bear to listen to him anymore. I think I agree with the majority of what he says, but to listen to his condescending tone puts me off. | Its funny until this post I thought my feelings about Neil were uncommon. He comes off as a complete narcissist which is doubly bad when he is (frequently) talking about shit he doesn't understand. My favorite example is when he mentioned to Joe Rogan that there are multiple sizes of infinity which is technically correct. Then he went on to "explain" several examples of this, each of which was completely wrong and/or utter nonsense. | 0 | 99 | 9.666667 |
e1r2be | askacademia_train | 0.95 | What do you all think of Neil deGrasse Tyson? This is a super random question but was just curious what other people in academia thought. Lately it seems like he goes on Twitter and tries to rain on everybody's parade with science. While I can understand having this attitude to pseudo-sciency things, he appears to speak about things he can't possibly be that extensively experienced in as if he's an expert of all things science. I really appreciate what he's done in his career and he's extremely gifted when it comes to outreach and making science interesting to the general public. However, from what I can tell he has a somewhat average record in research (although he was able to get into some top schools which is a feat in and of itself). I guess people just make him out to be a genius but to me it seems like there are probably thousands of less famous people out there who are equally accomplished? | f8rib6i | f8rj7gg | 1,574,741,168 | 1,574,741,880 | 10 | 116 | I lost all respect for him after paying 85$ to see one of his 'talks'and all he did was show us pictures of space-patterned dresses and funny pictures from 9gag, I shit you not | Its funny until this post I thought my feelings about Neil were uncommon. He comes off as a complete narcissist which is doubly bad when he is (frequently) talking about shit he doesn't understand. My favorite example is when he mentioned to Joe Rogan that there are multiple sizes of infinity which is technically correct. Then he went on to "explain" several examples of this, each of which was completely wrong and/or utter nonsense. | 0 | 712 | 11.6 |
e1r2be | askacademia_train | 0.95 | What do you all think of Neil deGrasse Tyson? This is a super random question but was just curious what other people in academia thought. Lately it seems like he goes on Twitter and tries to rain on everybody's parade with science. While I can understand having this attitude to pseudo-sciency things, he appears to speak about things he can't possibly be that extensively experienced in as if he's an expert of all things science. I really appreciate what he's done in his career and he's extremely gifted when it comes to outreach and making science interesting to the general public. However, from what I can tell he has a somewhat average record in research (although he was able to get into some top schools which is a feat in and of itself). I guess people just make him out to be a genius but to me it seems like there are probably thousands of less famous people out there who are equally accomplished? | f8rj9fy | f8rdyq0 | 1,574,741,926 | 1,574,738,035 | 93 | 35 | He contributes to the great physics tradition of dumping on disciplines he doesn't know anything about, e.g. philosophy, and generally speaking on anything (including far afield from physics) as if being a physicist qualified him to have a worthwhile opinion on any of it. | I remember he spoke about Columbus's discovery of America on the JRE as if it were a positive for the the Native Americans employing some strange pseudo scientific logic. That the indigenous people's DNA was too limited, and they needed to be put back in contact with the rest of humanity or some nonsense. I think that he is neither an expert on genetics, nor the history of New World colonization. So I wonder he felt so comfortable in taking on such a polemical topic in such a flippant manner. | 1 | 3,891 | 2.657143 |
e1r2be | askacademia_train | 0.95 | What do you all think of Neil deGrasse Tyson? This is a super random question but was just curious what other people in academia thought. Lately it seems like he goes on Twitter and tries to rain on everybody's parade with science. While I can understand having this attitude to pseudo-sciency things, he appears to speak about things he can't possibly be that extensively experienced in as if he's an expert of all things science. I really appreciate what he's done in his career and he's extremely gifted when it comes to outreach and making science interesting to the general public. However, from what I can tell he has a somewhat average record in research (although he was able to get into some top schools which is a feat in and of itself). I guess people just make him out to be a genius but to me it seems like there are probably thousands of less famous people out there who are equally accomplished? | f8rcllq | f8rj9fy | 1,574,737,132 | 1,574,741,926 | 32 | 93 | He is great at that part of science that is often overlooked: outreach. And I think that outreach is fundamental part of the economics of research. At the end, most of the hardcore theoretical science is funded by the government, aka the taxpayer, so it is very alarming, in my opinion, when they have little to no idea of what science is doing or what is the purpose. As the gap between frontier knowledge and the average joe widens, plus the current populist wave, I can see a future where the people start asking, wait, why are we funding all of these pretentious people that won't even take time to explain themselves? Luckily there are people like Neil deGrasse. | He contributes to the great physics tradition of dumping on disciplines he doesn't know anything about, e.g. philosophy, and generally speaking on anything (including far afield from physics) as if being a physicist qualified him to have a worthwhile opinion on any of it. | 0 | 4,794 | 2.90625 |
e1r2be | askacademia_train | 0.95 | What do you all think of Neil deGrasse Tyson? This is a super random question but was just curious what other people in academia thought. Lately it seems like he goes on Twitter and tries to rain on everybody's parade with science. While I can understand having this attitude to pseudo-sciency things, he appears to speak about things he can't possibly be that extensively experienced in as if he's an expert of all things science. I really appreciate what he's done in his career and he's extremely gifted when it comes to outreach and making science interesting to the general public. However, from what I can tell he has a somewhat average record in research (although he was able to get into some top schools which is a feat in and of itself). I guess people just make him out to be a genius but to me it seems like there are probably thousands of less famous people out there who are equally accomplished? | f8rj38s | f8rj9fy | 1,574,741,781 | 1,574,741,926 | 12 | 93 | Here’s my take on it: he’s become dogmatic about science. Kind of like religious folk who proselytize their viewpoint and have no room for the understandings of life from different shoes. Unwilling to listen and respect, rather just talking at you, self-assured of their righteous beliefs. I see Neil DeGrasee Tyson like this and that’s why I can’t bear to listen to him anymore. I think I agree with the majority of what he says, but to listen to his condescending tone puts me off. | He contributes to the great physics tradition of dumping on disciplines he doesn't know anything about, e.g. philosophy, and generally speaking on anything (including far afield from physics) as if being a physicist qualified him to have a worthwhile opinion on any of it. | 0 | 145 | 7.75 |
e1r2be | askacademia_train | 0.95 | What do you all think of Neil deGrasse Tyson? This is a super random question but was just curious what other people in academia thought. Lately it seems like he goes on Twitter and tries to rain on everybody's parade with science. While I can understand having this attitude to pseudo-sciency things, he appears to speak about things he can't possibly be that extensively experienced in as if he's an expert of all things science. I really appreciate what he's done in his career and he's extremely gifted when it comes to outreach and making science interesting to the general public. However, from what I can tell he has a somewhat average record in research (although he was able to get into some top schools which is a feat in and of itself). I guess people just make him out to be a genius but to me it seems like there are probably thousands of less famous people out there who are equally accomplished? | f8rj9fy | f8rib6i | 1,574,741,926 | 1,574,741,168 | 93 | 10 | He contributes to the great physics tradition of dumping on disciplines he doesn't know anything about, e.g. philosophy, and generally speaking on anything (including far afield from physics) as if being a physicist qualified him to have a worthwhile opinion on any of it. | I lost all respect for him after paying 85$ to see one of his 'talks'and all he did was show us pictures of space-patterned dresses and funny pictures from 9gag, I shit you not | 1 | 758 | 9.3 |
e1r2be | askacademia_train | 0.95 | What do you all think of Neil deGrasse Tyson? This is a super random question but was just curious what other people in academia thought. Lately it seems like he goes on Twitter and tries to rain on everybody's parade with science. While I can understand having this attitude to pseudo-sciency things, he appears to speak about things he can't possibly be that extensively experienced in as if he's an expert of all things science. I really appreciate what he's done in his career and he's extremely gifted when it comes to outreach and making science interesting to the general public. However, from what I can tell he has a somewhat average record in research (although he was able to get into some top schools which is a feat in and of itself). I guess people just make him out to be a genius but to me it seems like there are probably thousands of less famous people out there who are equally accomplished? | f8rcllq | f8rdyq0 | 1,574,737,132 | 1,574,738,035 | 32 | 35 | He is great at that part of science that is often overlooked: outreach. And I think that outreach is fundamental part of the economics of research. At the end, most of the hardcore theoretical science is funded by the government, aka the taxpayer, so it is very alarming, in my opinion, when they have little to no idea of what science is doing or what is the purpose. As the gap between frontier knowledge and the average joe widens, plus the current populist wave, I can see a future where the people start asking, wait, why are we funding all of these pretentious people that won't even take time to explain themselves? Luckily there are people like Neil deGrasse. | I remember he spoke about Columbus's discovery of America on the JRE as if it were a positive for the the Native Americans employing some strange pseudo scientific logic. That the indigenous people's DNA was too limited, and they needed to be put back in contact with the rest of humanity or some nonsense. I think that he is neither an expert on genetics, nor the history of New World colonization. So I wonder he felt so comfortable in taking on such a polemical topic in such a flippant manner. | 0 | 903 | 1.09375 |
e1r2be | askacademia_train | 0.95 | What do you all think of Neil deGrasse Tyson? This is a super random question but was just curious what other people in academia thought. Lately it seems like he goes on Twitter and tries to rain on everybody's parade with science. While I can understand having this attitude to pseudo-sciency things, he appears to speak about things he can't possibly be that extensively experienced in as if he's an expert of all things science. I really appreciate what he's done in his career and he's extremely gifted when it comes to outreach and making science interesting to the general public. However, from what I can tell he has a somewhat average record in research (although he was able to get into some top schools which is a feat in and of itself). I guess people just make him out to be a genius but to me it seems like there are probably thousands of less famous people out there who are equally accomplished? | f8rj38s | f8rib6i | 1,574,741,781 | 1,574,741,168 | 12 | 10 | Here’s my take on it: he’s become dogmatic about science. Kind of like religious folk who proselytize their viewpoint and have no room for the understandings of life from different shoes. Unwilling to listen and respect, rather just talking at you, self-assured of their righteous beliefs. I see Neil DeGrasee Tyson like this and that’s why I can’t bear to listen to him anymore. I think I agree with the majority of what he says, but to listen to his condescending tone puts me off. | I lost all respect for him after paying 85$ to see one of his 'talks'and all he did was show us pictures of space-patterned dresses and funny pictures from 9gag, I shit you not | 1 | 613 | 1.2 |
e1r2be | askacademia_train | 0.95 | What do you all think of Neil deGrasse Tyson? This is a super random question but was just curious what other people in academia thought. Lately it seems like he goes on Twitter and tries to rain on everybody's parade with science. While I can understand having this attitude to pseudo-sciency things, he appears to speak about things he can't possibly be that extensively experienced in as if he's an expert of all things science. I really appreciate what he's done in his career and he's extremely gifted when it comes to outreach and making science interesting to the general public. However, from what I can tell he has a somewhat average record in research (although he was able to get into some top schools which is a feat in and of itself). I guess people just make him out to be a genius but to me it seems like there are probably thousands of less famous people out there who are equally accomplished? | f8rz8ij | f8sdk66 | 1,574,760,736 | 1,574,777,855 | 8 | 9 | He does seem to have that "this is how it is" attitude, though I'm not an astrophysicist so I'm not going to comment on his expertise there, he definitely knows more than me. The problem is that it's not just with science that he acts that way. Via the vector of history of science he often ventures into making historical statements that are nonsense or at the very least uncareful with what seems like complete confidence and authority, even though he has no expertise there. | The big issue with NDT is that he's really not a physicist and doesn't know what he's talking about most of the time. For a layman, someone who got a PhD in a field in the 1990s and then did a postdoc on a specific topic before leaving the field is indistinguishable from an actual career-long research physicist. But they are extremely different. That's not me /r/gatekeeping, of course you can be extremely knowledgeable as a postdoc, but rather a retroactive explanation for the simple fact that he gets basic physics wrong ALL. THE. TIME. Astro people can have a reputation for not having the strongest knowledge of basic physics, but to be honest I am still legitimately amazed how he at one point must have gone through comps and yet how bad his knowledge is. Just really basic stuff he either says really wrong things about or just clearly doesn't understand it himself. And it's that that is most fatal. If you don't have a deep well of knowledge to draw from them your ability to explain things is extremely limited. Only if you understand the full picture can you confidently prune things down and adapt. Otherwise you end up with "wikipedia-ese" where someone is clearly just parroting something someone else wrote that they clearly don't understand too well. And that's IF he actually wrote his own stuff, which I assume most of the time he's just a "talking head" at this point. | 0 | 17,119 | 1.125 |
e1r2be | askacademia_train | 0.95 | What do you all think of Neil deGrasse Tyson? This is a super random question but was just curious what other people in academia thought. Lately it seems like he goes on Twitter and tries to rain on everybody's parade with science. While I can understand having this attitude to pseudo-sciency things, he appears to speak about things he can't possibly be that extensively experienced in as if he's an expert of all things science. I really appreciate what he's done in his career and he's extremely gifted when it comes to outreach and making science interesting to the general public. However, from what I can tell he has a somewhat average record in research (although he was able to get into some top schools which is a feat in and of itself). I guess people just make him out to be a genius but to me it seems like there are probably thousands of less famous people out there who are equally accomplished? | f8sdk66 | f8rm9rz | 1,574,777,855 | 1,574,744,558 | 9 | 5 | The big issue with NDT is that he's really not a physicist and doesn't know what he's talking about most of the time. For a layman, someone who got a PhD in a field in the 1990s and then did a postdoc on a specific topic before leaving the field is indistinguishable from an actual career-long research physicist. But they are extremely different. That's not me /r/gatekeeping, of course you can be extremely knowledgeable as a postdoc, but rather a retroactive explanation for the simple fact that he gets basic physics wrong ALL. THE. TIME. Astro people can have a reputation for not having the strongest knowledge of basic physics, but to be honest I am still legitimately amazed how he at one point must have gone through comps and yet how bad his knowledge is. Just really basic stuff he either says really wrong things about or just clearly doesn't understand it himself. And it's that that is most fatal. If you don't have a deep well of knowledge to draw from them your ability to explain things is extremely limited. Only if you understand the full picture can you confidently prune things down and adapt. Otherwise you end up with "wikipedia-ese" where someone is clearly just parroting something someone else wrote that they clearly don't understand too well. And that's IF he actually wrote his own stuff, which I assume most of the time he's just a "talking head" at this point. | I like him. I don't really see him as an academic anymore..but as a science communicator. And he is good at that. However, he has big shoes to fill as the follow-up of Carl Sagan and I don't think he lives up to Sagan as an academic or as a communicator. I appreciate him nonetheless | 1 | 33,297 | 1.8 |
e1r2be | askacademia_train | 0.95 | What do you all think of Neil deGrasse Tyson? This is a super random question but was just curious what other people in academia thought. Lately it seems like he goes on Twitter and tries to rain on everybody's parade with science. While I can understand having this attitude to pseudo-sciency things, he appears to speak about things he can't possibly be that extensively experienced in as if he's an expert of all things science. I really appreciate what he's done in his career and he's extremely gifted when it comes to outreach and making science interesting to the general public. However, from what I can tell he has a somewhat average record in research (although he was able to get into some top schools which is a feat in and of itself). I guess people just make him out to be a genius but to me it seems like there are probably thousands of less famous people out there who are equally accomplished? | f8rxxc3 | f8sdk66 | 1,574,758,659 | 1,574,777,855 | 5 | 9 | Hi, Neil. | The big issue with NDT is that he's really not a physicist and doesn't know what he's talking about most of the time. For a layman, someone who got a PhD in a field in the 1990s and then did a postdoc on a specific topic before leaving the field is indistinguishable from an actual career-long research physicist. But they are extremely different. That's not me /r/gatekeeping, of course you can be extremely knowledgeable as a postdoc, but rather a retroactive explanation for the simple fact that he gets basic physics wrong ALL. THE. TIME. Astro people can have a reputation for not having the strongest knowledge of basic physics, but to be honest I am still legitimately amazed how he at one point must have gone through comps and yet how bad his knowledge is. Just really basic stuff he either says really wrong things about or just clearly doesn't understand it himself. And it's that that is most fatal. If you don't have a deep well of knowledge to draw from them your ability to explain things is extremely limited. Only if you understand the full picture can you confidently prune things down and adapt. Otherwise you end up with "wikipedia-ese" where someone is clearly just parroting something someone else wrote that they clearly don't understand too well. And that's IF he actually wrote his own stuff, which I assume most of the time he's just a "talking head" at this point. | 0 | 19,196 | 1.8 |
e1r2be | askacademia_train | 0.95 | What do you all think of Neil deGrasse Tyson? This is a super random question but was just curious what other people in academia thought. Lately it seems like he goes on Twitter and tries to rain on everybody's parade with science. While I can understand having this attitude to pseudo-sciency things, he appears to speak about things he can't possibly be that extensively experienced in as if he's an expert of all things science. I really appreciate what he's done in his career and he's extremely gifted when it comes to outreach and making science interesting to the general public. However, from what I can tell he has a somewhat average record in research (although he was able to get into some top schools which is a feat in and of itself). I guess people just make him out to be a genius but to me it seems like there are probably thousands of less famous people out there who are equally accomplished? | f8rz8ij | f8rm9rz | 1,574,760,736 | 1,574,744,558 | 8 | 5 | He does seem to have that "this is how it is" attitude, though I'm not an astrophysicist so I'm not going to comment on his expertise there, he definitely knows more than me. The problem is that it's not just with science that he acts that way. Via the vector of history of science he often ventures into making historical statements that are nonsense or at the very least uncareful with what seems like complete confidence and authority, even though he has no expertise there. | I like him. I don't really see him as an academic anymore..but as a science communicator. And he is good at that. However, he has big shoes to fill as the follow-up of Carl Sagan and I don't think he lives up to Sagan as an academic or as a communicator. I appreciate him nonetheless | 1 | 16,178 | 1.6 |
e1r2be | askacademia_train | 0.95 | What do you all think of Neil deGrasse Tyson? This is a super random question but was just curious what other people in academia thought. Lately it seems like he goes on Twitter and tries to rain on everybody's parade with science. While I can understand having this attitude to pseudo-sciency things, he appears to speak about things he can't possibly be that extensively experienced in as if he's an expert of all things science. I really appreciate what he's done in his career and he's extremely gifted when it comes to outreach and making science interesting to the general public. However, from what I can tell he has a somewhat average record in research (although he was able to get into some top schools which is a feat in and of itself). I guess people just make him out to be a genius but to me it seems like there are probably thousands of less famous people out there who are equally accomplished? | f8rz8ij | f8rxxc3 | 1,574,760,736 | 1,574,758,659 | 8 | 5 | He does seem to have that "this is how it is" attitude, though I'm not an astrophysicist so I'm not going to comment on his expertise there, he definitely knows more than me. The problem is that it's not just with science that he acts that way. Via the vector of history of science he often ventures into making historical statements that are nonsense or at the very least uncareful with what seems like complete confidence and authority, even though he has no expertise there. | Hi, Neil. | 1 | 2,077 | 1.6 |
o88pcv | askacademia_train | 0.97 | Is SciHub a good thing or a bad thing? It's blocked at my university and I was just wondering what the general consensus is about this website. Happy Saturday. | h33h5ip | h33gwpi | 1,624,706,339 | 1,624,706,129 | 134 | 37 | For the most part, the only people I've seen who have strong negative feelings about SciHub are those involved in the academic publishing industry. There are vague concerns I've seen others express about whether copies of papers downloaded from SciHub are legit (i.e., that someone may have uploaded a fake paper using the doi of a real paper, etc), but I've never seen anyone provide an example of this actually happening. Ultimately, there needs to be some middle ground. The economic model of most academic publishers is not sustainable and it's extremely exploitative, but at the same time publishers do add value to manuscripts (not anywhere near enough to legitimize what most charge) so there needs to be some mechanism for publishers to at least recoup their losses. SciHub fills a niche at the moment, but the hope that most of us have (I think) is that it won't have to exist forever as more authors, universities, and funding agencies push back on the academic publishers and we more toward a more sustainable model. | Good. Making these articles available to people without the means to access them through publishers asking ridiculous prices is important. | 1 | 210 | 3.621622 |
o88pcv | askacademia_train | 0.97 | Is SciHub a good thing or a bad thing? It's blocked at my university and I was just wondering what the general consensus is about this website. Happy Saturday. | h33r6wh | h33l38k | 1,624,713,837 | 1,624,709,625 | 88 | 37 | Very very bad. Definitely don't use it. Also definitely don't use gen.lib.rus.ec for textbooks. Very bad news. | A good thing. Researchers don't get any money for their views and publishing is a massive rip off as now it is all online. Certain papers might get 1 view a week, the cost of hosting and supplying that is negligible. It isn't like reviewers get paid either. | 1 | 4,212 | 2.378378 |
o88pcv | askacademia_train | 0.97 | Is SciHub a good thing or a bad thing? It's blocked at my university and I was just wondering what the general consensus is about this website. Happy Saturday. | h33r6wh | h33gwpi | 1,624,713,837 | 1,624,706,129 | 88 | 37 | Very very bad. Definitely don't use it. Also definitely don't use gen.lib.rus.ec for textbooks. Very bad news. | Good. Making these articles available to people without the means to access them through publishers asking ridiculous prices is important. | 1 | 7,708 | 2.378378 |
o88pcv | askacademia_train | 0.97 | Is SciHub a good thing or a bad thing? It's blocked at my university and I was just wondering what the general consensus is about this website. Happy Saturday. | h33q3c9 | h33r6wh | 1,624,713,132 | 1,624,713,837 | 27 | 88 | Well ethically speaking... it's the best. | Very very bad. Definitely don't use it. Also definitely don't use gen.lib.rus.ec for textbooks. Very bad news. | 0 | 705 | 3.259259 |
o88pcv | askacademia_train | 0.97 | Is SciHub a good thing or a bad thing? It's blocked at my university and I was just wondering what the general consensus is about this website. Happy Saturday. | h33r6wh | h33nhh6 | 1,624,713,837 | 1,624,711,362 | 88 | 19 | Very very bad. Definitely don't use it. Also definitely don't use gen.lib.rus.ec for textbooks. Very bad news. | It is literally the best thing ever. | 1 | 2,475 | 4.631579 |
o88pcv | askacademia_train | 0.97 | Is SciHub a good thing or a bad thing? It's blocked at my university and I was just wondering what the general consensus is about this website. Happy Saturday. | h33r6wh | h33obqr | 1,624,713,837 | 1,624,711,949 | 88 | 17 | Very very bad. Definitely don't use it. Also definitely don't use gen.lib.rus.ec for textbooks. Very bad news. | A very good thing. Publishing companies take money from author, institutions, and readers without paying any of their reviewers . So where does all this money go? | 1 | 1,888 | 5.176471 |
o88pcv | askacademia_train | 0.97 | Is SciHub a good thing or a bad thing? It's blocked at my university and I was just wondering what the general consensus is about this website. Happy Saturday. | h33itnt | h33r6wh | 1,624,707,785 | 1,624,713,837 | 15 | 88 | It's the best thing! I have subscription to all the journals through my academic institution but I still use Scihub for the convenience. It is just so quick and easy to use. | Very very bad. Definitely don't use it. Also definitely don't use gen.lib.rus.ec for textbooks. Very bad news. | 0 | 6,052 | 5.866667 |
o88pcv | askacademia_train | 0.97 | Is SciHub a good thing or a bad thing? It's blocked at my university and I was just wondering what the general consensus is about this website. Happy Saturday. | h33ncnd | h33r6wh | 1,624,711,267 | 1,624,713,837 | 9 | 88 | Good - the article processing charges associated with open access are exorbitant, making it unavailable for many researchers. Buying subscriptions to journals is also expensive - without a subscription, accessing a single article may cost up to 40$. I was writing a case report recently and tried to access an orthopedics article published in the early 1990s and it was still behind a paywall. | Very very bad. Definitely don't use it. Also definitely don't use gen.lib.rus.ec for textbooks. Very bad news. | 0 | 2,570 | 9.777778 |
o88pcv | askacademia_train | 0.97 | Is SciHub a good thing or a bad thing? It's blocked at my university and I was just wondering what the general consensus is about this website. Happy Saturday. | h33r6wh | h33lssp | 1,624,713,837 | 1,624,710,155 | 88 | 6 | Very very bad. Definitely don't use it. Also definitely don't use gen.lib.rus.ec for textbooks. Very bad news. | I think it’s amazing. I found it very helpful in undergrad. | 1 | 3,682 | 14.666667 |
o88pcv | askacademia_train | 0.97 | Is SciHub a good thing or a bad thing? It's blocked at my university and I was just wondering what the general consensus is about this website. Happy Saturday. | h33rck0 | h347psi | 1,624,713,936 | 1,624,722,857 | 41 | 59 | There are not many things I have extremely strong opinions on, but I absolutely support SciHub. Long live free and open article access! | In many underdeveloped countries, it's the only way people can have access to new research. So... good, I guess | 0 | 8,921 | 1.439024 |
o88pcv | askacademia_train | 0.97 | Is SciHub a good thing or a bad thing? It's blocked at my university and I was just wondering what the general consensus is about this website. Happy Saturday. | h33l38k | h347psi | 1,624,709,625 | 1,624,722,857 | 37 | 59 | A good thing. Researchers don't get any money for their views and publishing is a massive rip off as now it is all online. Certain papers might get 1 view a week, the cost of hosting and supplying that is negligible. It isn't like reviewers get paid either. | In many underdeveloped countries, it's the only way people can have access to new research. So... good, I guess | 0 | 13,232 | 1.594595 |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.