idk whatever. something like this.

…and if everyone who is publishing in Nature Scientific Reports is paying €2400 in fees per article, then this journal alone has raked in up €103 million this year. (This would be a ceiling, many states & institutions negotiate the fee with the publisher.)

Are those teabags? Sacks of salt?

Agreed, I don’t love that our conception of what’s “normal” isn’t broad enough to accommodate people like this. Chuck Rosenberg’s “Tyranny of Diagnosis” is also a warning.

"History of scientific practice ≠ history of the material culture of science" is a hard problem to solve and an easy one for a dummy like me to forget about!

Uff, DOGE January still feels like it was yesterday, and USAID is still gone.

Either the loser or the winner is beheaded with an obsidian knife?

Every so often I cynically think academic publishing is not very far away from self-publishing, but then I think of all of the peer reviews where I do demand serious revisions or flat out reject.

Many are the rubes of our time, but the Q-Anoners who voted for Pedo-President three times may be the most rube and patsy that anyone can ever get.

In the history of the world, 'anti-pedophile conspiracy detective accidentally makes a pedophile rapist president *twice*' may never be topped.

It's vastly more profitable than the entire illicit drug trade, which boggles the mind. Sue-Lin Wong at the Economist did a phenomenal 8-part podcast series on this: www.economist.com/audio/podcas...

I guess the "DNA scissors" metaphor needs to go with "DNA sticky tape" and "DNA baling wire".

Was ist hier los??

Pretty sure they missed some big ones like electrification, but also who dates the boom in US auto infrastructure to the 1910s?