alzymologist@sopuli.xyz 2 days ago
this particular “popular” write-up of research is exquisitely long and non-informative, hardly a piece of information in many screens long article filled with ads. Maybe this place deserves original research links with a few poster’s comments?
As a non-physicist, reading it in reader mode, it was ad-free and relatively digestible. There was very little repetition which seems to be a common way of getting more bulk these days, and for the more technical, the link to the paper was right at the end.
I’m curious exactly what you were after instead of this?
What is reader mode and how do I turn it on for these websites? I got so many invites into some scammy mmorpg websites and dating apps like I haven’t seen in last month.
It depends on your app / browser—I’m using Arctic on an iPhone, and it has a setting to always open links in reader mode by default.
But usually there’s a button / icon / menu option once the site has loaded to switch to reader mode. This is what it looks like in Firefox on iPhone:
Didn’t know it has any effect now! Thank you!
As for content, I guess our knowledge groups strayed too far apart, which is totally fine. I still would think that if people posting these links added a few words of their own that would be awesome.
I use Fennec for Android and that page has no ads that I saw. Phys.org also has a high factual and reliability rating on some independent rating sites.
threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
The original research seems to be this paper here:
doi.org/10.1103/61j9-cjkk
journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/61j9-cjkk