2. Popper tells us that we should be our own best skeptics. Unfortunately our professional incentives often make us the opposite.

As we conduct research, we should all be self-skeptical and self-questioning and self-doubting. We should expose our own thinking and decisions to close examination.

As I reflect on this, three thoughts:

1. This case is only symptomatic of a bigger problem; increasingly broken incentive structures in our disciplines and industry.

Our job is *not* to publish for the sake of publishing. It is to produce and advance *knowledge*. This process is hard and slow.

🙌🏼 happy to chip in to buy a billboard

Where we are at, or where we *think* we are at? or the fact that there’s no longer a meaningful distinction?

Thanks but it’s not a matter of the editor. It’s the uninterpretable errors. I’ve been using latex (mostly *not* Overleaf) for ~13 years & still find it unintuitive & unfriendly. This overleaf outage (on a deadline day) might be the final straw.

Yes but getting it to compile locally is another story 😭

Honestly, my digestive tract agrees 🥴

There’s actually a lot of this content on TikTok. It’s coming from academics / researchers and from journalists, to some extent. So it’s prob more a matter of what the algorithm is serving them.

Wow, glad I was able to vote there (absentee)!