This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is wshuff with a response to the complaint that Sci-Hub has no incentive to ensure accuracy or ethical standards of research papers:
Oh, you mean like that time Elsevier published fake journals?
https://www.the-scientist.com/the-nutshell/elsevier-published-6-fake-journals-44160
In second place, it’s Stephen T. Stone with a simple response to our post about how a lot of people who think they have problems with Section 230 actually have problems with the first amendment:
I have but one response to this article:
A-fuckin’-men! 🙏
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with another simple comment on that article, this time from an anonymous commenter responding to someone who brought up the supposed free speech implications of “being denied access to a large audience”:
The 1st amendment says nothing about being granted an audience!
Next, it’s PaulT responding to a comment about the lack of unbiased “mass media” (labelled as “Fact #1”):
Fact #2: there in not any source of truly neutral, unbiased information anywhere. If you think that your favourite non-mass media source is completely unbiased, I’d check your wallet because you’ve been conned.
The trick is to understand the inherent biases in the sources you visit and temper them with sources with different biases, not to pretend you don’t have the bias problem.
Over on the funny side, our first place winner is Thad with a response to our post about the interesting and valid question raised by Shiva Ayyadurai’s lawsuit against a Massachusetts official, and specifically to the development that he is proceeding pro se:
Well, you know the old saying: anyone who represents Shiva Ayyadurai has a fool for a client.
In second place, it’s an anonymous response to some fearmongering about all the bad that will happen under Biden/Harris:
Sure, Jan.
Just like Obama took all your guns, Hillary was locked up, Mexico paid for the wall, and you repealed and replaced Obamacare with my sooper dooper Trumpcare.
At some point, when you’re that wrong, people start thinking you’re full of shit.
For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out with an anonymous comment offering the only reasonable explanation for modern copyright law:
I think copyright is to encourage the author to continue creating new works even many years after their death.
Finally, we’ve got Khym Chanur in a thread started by a certain commenter who believes that anyone with a gap in their comment record is some sort of fake bot or sockpuppet — this time with someone who responded noting that “I don’t comment often, although I read this site most everyday and normally find comments I would have made already made”:
Pfft, real people don’t let “I have nothing new to add to the discussion” stop them from cluttering up the conversation.
That’s all for this week, folks!
Go to Source
Author: Leigh Beadon