Ever attended scientific conferences? They can be quite fun!

To celebrate getting a paper accepted, here are some of the best advice I've gotten over the years for writing scientific articles:

marcphilibert.substack.com/p/how-to-bec...

In honor of march madness, I made my own scientists starting five. Who would you chose to have on your team?

marcphilibert.substack.com/p/a-scientif...

What advice can 90's hip-hop artists give us in terms of scientific collaboration? A review. #science #hiphop

marcphilibert.substack.com/p/how-to-bui...

How about a discussion about the future of water? What would your take be?

marcphilibert.substack.com/p/the-future...

The third is a discussion about scientific expertise and cats inhaling PM2.5 apparently 🤔

marcphilibert.substack.com/p/how-to-rec...

My second note is about my favorite science article and the concept of productive stupidity!

marcphilibert.substack.com/p/productive...

My take here is that we should never expect absolute/perfect answers from current AI, but isn't it a question of expectations or setting limits to accuracy? An AI fed sufficient data should be ok, but need to define "sufficient" and future corruption by introducing faulty training sets is a risk.

Il faudrait aussi évaluer comment ce risque de cancer se compare à des risques de cancer liés à d’autres voies d’expositions. Simplement pour voir si tout vient de l’eau (j’en doute). Après, par contre, si qqn veut réfuter l’impact de l’activité humaine sur l’environnement ou la santé après ça...

I agree, framing the WWTP as a source of PFAS is not proper reporting. I've been feeling that New Scientist have been very adept at clickbait titling of their pieces, which is a bit disappointing.