Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | tejohnso's commentslogin

Another post about how bad the web experience has become, discussing a negative experience that I don't notice at all because I use Brave. I can't believe it's not the dominant browser. It solves so many problems with no user intervention.

Isn't the problem that if everybody started using it most Web sites couldn't keep existing?

Most web sites are crap, honestly.

Recent experience: trying to search for websites that review products that I'm not familiar with. It was pretty obvious that most of those review sites had never actually touched the products they were reviewing, they all just copied each other.


Their problem, not mine.

You start off by confidently stating wallaBBB's statement is false.

But nothing you said invalidates what they said.


Throw a $250,000 incentive into the mix and you're almost guaranteed to get less than honest work.

I thought her rant about bullshit papers was pretty convincing and poignant.

The problem with sabine is that she's become the worst person to make a correct point for the wrong reasons

If you do research it becomes pretty apparent that a high number papers are not great. There's varying issues, but a big one is that the funding model incentivises pumping out papers which are often of low quality, researching whatever happens to be in vogue at the moment

Literally everyone I've ever talked to in research as a frank conversation knows that this is a massive problem, but nobody wants to talk about it publicly. Research funding is already completely screwed as it is, and researchers are incredibly aware of how fragile their livelihoods are

Its clearly leading to a big reduction in the quality of the literature. I went on a replication spree recently and found that a pretty decent chunk of the field I was working in was completely unreplicable by me, with a few papers that I strongly suspect 'massaged' their results for various reasons

I wish someone would talk about this who wasn't also in bed with right wing grifters, and was actually credible. We need someone more like ben goldacre for physics

Sabine's most interesting content is the paper reviews, and where she sticks to actually examining the evidence - but it makes up a tiny fraction of what she produces these days, and her support for some truly grim figures is just gross


Your paragraphs two, three and four are exactly what Sabine is communicating. So much so that it almost sounds like you pulled a transcript from one of her videos.

I don't think you're describing "the" problem with Sabine. She's not what you want her to be but that's a you problem. You're describing your particular problem with Sabine.

I appreciate that she's doing a lot to bring attention to the real issue despite your claim that she is supporting grim figures. I know about the problem because of her work, but I have no idea who Ben goldacre is.

Also no idea what you mean by supporting grim figures. I checked to see if she has come out in support of Jeffrey Epstein or something crazy like that, but no.


> I checked to see if she has come out in support of Jeffrey Epstein or something crazy like that, but no.

Bro she blurbed "The War on Science," a book stuffed with racists and sex pests complaining that they lost their jobs for falling in love with their graduate students, writing them love poetry on tumblr, and then kicking them out of their research group because they could stand to be near them. Or for saying that they "don't shy away from the word superior" when discussing white people being better at running societies and lying about the GPAs of black students. Or for taking joking photographs with human remains.

And yes, the authors of the book include people who provided support in the legal defense of jeffrey epstein.


Yep, this exactly. Its completely unacceptable

And its not something that's just a 'you' problem - if you want the actual underlying issues in physics to be fixed, its a massive issue that the spokesperson for fixing those problem currently may be a bigot, or at the very least endorses bigots and sex pests. Beyond just being generally completely unacceptable, it allows everyone to completely dismiss whatever is being said very easily

For the other poster, ben goldacre is someone that's become very well known for making effectively the same points as sabine, but within the pharmaceutical industry. They sat down and basically wrote for decades about how the testing was absolutely broken, multiple books, a column, and producing lots of work on how broken studies were in medicine and talking to anyone that would listen - and as a result, they were actual able to enact effective change. It was a huge win for evidence based science!

Sabine is not someone who can achieve that in physics - her videos would be much more effective if they contained actionable content and concrete analyses of the issues. I'd have a tonne of respect for her if what she did was publish papers or videos showing the degree to which the literature was broken, analysing funding, conducting interviews (even if anonymous) with researchers, looking through examples of bad papers and explaining the problems to a lay audience. Producing a mixture of for-scientist and for-lay person material to break the figures down, in a way that produces a compelling argument

Instead we at best get specific examples plucked out of the air. I know she isn't massively overgeneralising the issue from my own personal experience, but she presents a terribly uncompelling argument as to why there are problems. Where's the data? Why are you writing book blurbs for sex offenders instead of writing papers?

That's why I've come around increasingly to the idea that she's a grifter, even though I used to enjoy her content (before it went out of the window) and think that she does likely genuinely care about the underlying problem to some degree. Its closer to ragebait than anything that feels productive now unfortunately. I don't think its even necessarily on purpose on her end - the right wing has a way of sucking in anyone on the fringes and giving them a home even without them knowing, but also why give her the benefit of the doubt?


If I understood this, you agree with Sabine, but since she's "in bed with right wing grifters" she should not be listened to?

This is not very persuasive.


I agree with a part of Sabine's overall output, but she's increasingly misidentifying some of the problems and the solutions because she's drifted too far towards the grifters

To a large degree if you're trying to successfully trying to push for change, it really matters that the person pushing for it is credible. Someone like ben goldacre is able to credibly make a strong push for change within medicine because they've maintained credibility, someone like sabine makes the situation worse because they've chucked it away


Maybe it's like this:

Sabine's has a day job as a Youtuber, and she makes her videos from that perspective. She speaks her mind, makes a decent living, and educates some science nerds on the way. Seems pretty nice.

From the perspective of accomplishing institutional change in the academic physics world, this is does nothing. The institutional powers don't react at all to a complaining influencer with an Einstein doll.

And I suspect she's perfectly fine with that. Overturning the Physics establishment is a near impossible task. I would leave that for those mad enough to try.


But we've discovered a number of useful tools and techniques that are applicable to other areas of research have we not? The billions of dollars spent on string theory hype might have unlocked a strategy or technique that ends up being useful in a civilization changing way that we just don't know about yet. Maybe string theory and the hype it was able to generate was just the catalyst that we needed.

what didn't se develop because those people were working on string theory? That is an unanswerable question. It is also the important question.

Compared to all the other useless endeavors we send our brightest minds to work on (optimizing ad sales, high frequency trading, crypto) I'd say physics research has the highest chance of being useful

What makes it a scare tactic? There are other areas in which extinction is a serious concern and people don't behave as though it's all that scary or important. It's just a banal fact. And for all of the extinction threats, AI included, it's very easy to find plenty of deep dive commentary if you care.

I remember reading a children's book when I was young and the fact that people used the phrase "World War One" rather than "The Great War" was a clue to the reader that events were taking place in a certain time period. Never forgot that for some reason.

I failed to catch the clue, btw.


It wouldn’t be totally implausible to use that phrase between the wars. The name “the First World War” was used as early as 1920, although not very common.


I seem to recall reading that as a kid too, but I can't find it now. I keep finding references to "Encyclopedia Brown, Boy Detective" about a Civil War sword being fake (instead of a Great War one), but with the same plot I'd remembered.


The Encyclopedia Brown story I remember reading as a kid involved a Civil War era sword with an inscription saying it was given on the occasion of the First Battle of Bull Run. The clues that the sword was a modern fake were the phrasing "First Battle of Bull Run", but also that the sword was gifted on the Confederate side, and the Confederates would've called the battle "Manassas Junction".

The wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_Bull_Run says the Confederate name was "First Manassas" (I might be misremembering exactly what this book I read as a child said). Also I'm pretty sure it was specifically "Encyclopedia Brown Solves Them All" that this mystery appeared in. If someone has a copy of the book or cares to dig it up, they could confirm my memory.


Can confirm, it was an Encyclopedia Brown book and it was World War One vs the Great War that gave away the sword as a counterfeit!


I remember that the brother of my grandmother who fought in ww1 called it simply "the war" ("sa gherra" in his dialect/language).


Pendragon?


> they can't pass that extra cost on to customers

I don't understand why not. People pay for quality all the time, and often they're begging to pay for quality, it's just not an option. Of course, it depends on how much more quality is being offered, but it sounds like a significant amount here.


> they could sit on their hands and still get paid

Could? I know of government employees who literally cannot do their job, yet somehow they've been employed for over twenty years. When I say they can't do their job, I mean they have to ask coworkers how to do something that is and always has been a job requirement, and they have to "ask for help" every time. People are actually enabling massive amounts of waste and inefficiency.

Then there are those who don't even have work to do, and will take offense if you ask them to justify their continued employment. As though they are owed a position in the organization tomorrow just because they have a position in the company today.


Indeed. I work with governments all over the United States from federal, to states to counties, and even to larger cities. This is a consistent pattern I see as well. We have senior IT people who don't even know basics about firewall configuration. In one place, I waited 2 weeks for the IT person to figure out how to even get into the firewall configuration. Then they proceeded to completely screw it up in obvious ways, and then once we got the firewall completely configured, we could not get the app to work. It took another 2 weeks, and burned 40 hours of engineer time on our side, before somebody on their end realized that they had modified the wrong firewall!

I wish I could say that was an unusual experience. In another jurisdiction it took two months and we finally got to the point where even providing specific coaching telling them that it wasn't working because they opened the TCP port numbers we said instead of UDP, even though UDP was heavily emphasized. The stonewalling and constant battling ended up delaying our launch to the point where the decision makers decided to just can it instead of fight with their own IT organization.

Now that said, I have worked with some truly incredible and brilliant people on the government side. There definitely are some fantastic people that work for the government. Unfortunately they seem to be in a minority.


I wish I could say that was an unusual experience.

It sure is not. I'm not going to list all the examples I know as embarrassing some departments does not end well but I have to share this one. I tried to email someone at the California DMV a couple decades ago. My email bounced and I got a strange routing error. I assumed the problem was on my end. The first thing I did was dig their MX records and what did I get? 2 MX records with RFC1918 address space (10.0/8). I managed to get through to a real person on the phone and that went nowhere. They eventually fixed it some months later but they probably enjoyed the email silence.

Another one involved a 3 letter agency that should know better and could not figure out how to install an intermediate certificate on their website. They expected me to instead install their certificate on all of our servers and got mad & huffy puffy when I refused. I am not naming them but after a couple years they figured it out.


I don't believe there is an easy fix though. The government will prioritize retention because it promotes institutional stability while at the same time offering low pay (and not just low pay but often a complete lack of flexibility regarding pay) because the electorate demands it.

Which means that the truly good people are basically quirky people with strong work ethic/believe in the mission that happened to join the organization for some reason.


You seem to think this is somehow specific to government. It is not. And, no, the market does not eventually destroy the organizations where it happens.


While perhaps not exclusive to the public sector, it undeniably happens WAY more often.


Source?


Any public-sector employee ever. Seriously, ask one you know.


I was confused because one of the characters tells the wolf he might have more friends if he didn't go around killing animals all the time. Then the wolf starts making vegetarian dishes, and I thought, okay, they're promoting vegetarianism. Great. But then later the wolf is killing fish, and that's ...okay I guess because they don't talk or walk like the other animals? The speciesism hit hard.


"Fish meat is practically a vegetable" --Ron Swanson


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: