Example of implication of what you're suggesting. My new love interest has a serious medical condition. She suffers seizures, blindness, and a host of other nightmares. She is one of four of five documented people with this condition. She and her PCP rely studies by the two doctors who have ever dealt with this. Their names are on the studies, and because of this they have made contact and are working together. This is probably why she is alive right now.
If every grifter with a medical degree slapped their names on these studies she would have no way of verifying who could provide legitimate care. Without a chain of authorship it would be entirely on her to judge each and every doctor and whatever made-up treatments they suggested. That is a really fucked up situation.
I never asked about treatment, or cutting edge research. Not once.
I simply asked for theory, history, or education on how the proposal of letting anyone claim authorship would work. That was not provided. So I provided examples of what I see as shortcomings of the idea of letting anyone claim authorship. I probably took it personally, but it was a real response to an idea that does not work without harming someone I care about.
Insisting something is a good idea without being able to provide any additional details is well below the bar of the typical conversation here. If they did not want to provide details, or could not - they could have disengaged. I did so once I realized they did not.
None of this matters, I was talking about stupid jokes on stupid podcasts.
My point is that the established culture in academia is different to memesharing and exporting a code of conduct designed around protecting careers and effective research to one of people just typing nonsense they stop thinking about in 30 minutes is unreasonable
I did not take the conversation in this direction, the person I responded to did. The poster I was responding to brought up their ideas, legislation, and any other number of topics unrelated to my post.
It is not comparable, you are right. But I was willing to engage with the ideas brought up in response because I was interested in what they were saying, and they have historically had good insights.
Example of implication of what you're suggesting. My new love interest has a serious medical condition. She suffers seizures, blindness, and a host of other nightmares. She is one of four of five documented people with this condition. She and her PCP rely studies by the two doctors who have ever dealt with this. Their names are on the studies, and because of this they have made contact and are working together. This is probably why she is alive right now.
If every grifter with a medical degree slapped their names on these studies she would have no way of verifying who could provide legitimate care. Without a chain of authorship it would be entirely on her to judge each and every doctor and whatever made-up treatments they suggested. That is a really fucked up situation.
Anyway, enjoy your day.
the treatment of medical issues is simply more important than shitposting
we are not academics working on cutting edge research here we are laughing at the same damn picture of a pig
I never asked about treatment, or cutting edge research. Not once.
I simply asked for theory, history, or education on how the proposal of letting anyone claim authorship would work. That was not provided. So I provided examples of what I see as shortcomings of the idea of letting anyone claim authorship. I probably took it personally, but it was a real response to an idea that does not work without harming someone I care about.
Insisting something is a good idea without being able to provide any additional details is well below the bar of the typical conversation here. If they did not want to provide details, or could not - they could have disengaged. I did so once I realized they did not.
None of this matters, I was talking about stupid jokes on stupid podcasts.
My point is that the established culture in academia is different to memesharing and exporting a code of conduct designed around protecting careers and effective research to one of people just typing nonsense they stop thinking about in 30 minutes is unreasonable
I did not take the conversation in this direction, the person I responded to did. The poster I was responding to brought up their ideas, legislation, and any other number of topics unrelated to my post.
It is not comparable, you are right. But I was willing to engage with the ideas brought up in response because I was interested in what they were saying, and they have historically had good insights.