He owns a yacht. I’d be interested to hear of a single yacht owner who is a decent person. I’m not sure one exists.
He did though.
Submitted 11 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/66255c82-b6fc-44c5-a7ab-914fe6b493b2.webp
Comments
seth@lemmy.world 11 months ago
starman@programming.dev 11 months ago
The one guy who downvoted owns a yacht
chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Noah seemed like a chill dude. Man liked his drink, for sure. Loved animals…
768@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
Noah would’ve been a genocide-complicit, doomsday cult prepper, similar to those who build private libertarian cities on the ocean or some planet as a climate adaptation strategy.
starman2112@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
Noah was the original Joe Exotic, except with every single exotic pet in existence
Jaded@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 months ago
Noah brought along mosquitos, the guy is filled with hate
Notyou@sopuli.xyz 11 months ago
Wasn’t he the one that banged his daughters? Idk there was a few of those types in the bible.
LillyPip@lemmy.ca 11 months ago
Some people live on yachts and that’s their entire home. So like a 70,000£ yacht, then like 300£ a month in slip (berth) fees, including electric and whatnot.
It’s a decent alternative to a landlocked home.
But yeah, millionaires with yachts are a different thing.
seth@lemmy.world 11 months ago
That’s a good use case. I’d be interested to know more about the idiosyncrasies that come with that lifestyle, like if they go out to sea when a storm is expected, or just weather it out in the harbor.
grue@lemmy.world 11 months ago
This person seems decent. Her and her S.O. live on a 50-year-old 36’ sailboat that they bought for $7000 and refit themselves.
seth@lemmy.world 11 months ago
That’s an excellent exception, and quite interesting. Thanks for the link!
thebardingreen@lemmy.starlightkel.xyz 11 months ago
My cousin did this with her wife and they are very decent.
The thing was a floating money pit though and was usually broken down and was sometimes uninhabitable because of various issues.
Then the hull got damaged in a storm when waves banged it against the dock over and over again.
Now they own a nice little house.
sukhmel@programming.dev 11 months ago
My ex-teamlead owns a yacht (if he didn’t sell it). The catch is that yacht is worth about $40 thousands, not $4 millions.
Also there was a person in USSR who built a yacht and circumnavigated the Earth on that, not everyone who do own a yach own that luxury slab of floating gold
AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 11 months ago
That’s awfully cheap for a yacht. Did it float?
pomodoro_longbreak@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
You wouldn’t gentrify the oceans 😳
moog@lemm.ee 11 months ago
“…he sought funding from the private sector to start Celera Genomics. The company planned to profit from their work by creating genomic data to which users could subscribe for a fee.”
Fuck this guy
IzyaKatzmann@hexbear.net 11 months ago
For folks that don’t know, Venter had a company, Celera, they competed with the Human Genome Project (HGP) run by the US Gov’t. They developed interesting techniques to sequence, I believe they are credited with shotgun sequencing.
How were they able to compete?? The HGP published all their work openly, Venter and co used the freely accessible data alongside their own proprietary methods to try and sequence the human genome first themselves.
If I recall correctly it was considered a tie and they both jointly published the first sequenced human genome in Science.
windowlicker@hexbear.net 11 months ago
shotgun sequencing predates celera and the HGP, but yeah
IzyaKatzmann@hexbear.net 11 months ago
Aw crap, my bad, appreciate the correction. I thought they applied it in a novel way or something? Anyways Venter’s business practice sucks.
Sloogs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 months ago
Surely there has to be a cost to the infrastructure of publishing and curation though. And possibly all the work of setting up and organizing the peer review profess. But perhaps we should treat it as a public good, like libraries, or have universities and institutions fund it for the public good.
jol@discuss.tchncs.de 11 months ago
But it’s mostly a scam. The costs don’t remotely compare to the revenue. Reviewers time is not paid, and there’s a price to both publish and access. It’s all about the prestige to publish. If you contact the author directly they’ll typically gladly send you the article for free.
AeonFelis@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Not to mention that system started about four centuries ago, long before the Internet was invented. I’d assume that back then, the costs and effort of operating a journal really did justify the prices they charged.
Sloogs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 months ago
Oh absolutely. I agree. I don’t think anyone’s disputing that something about it needs to change.
What_Religion_R_They@hexbear.net 11 months ago
Sci-hub very-smart
pokemaster787@ani.social 11 months ago
What even is this argument?
“Scientists who say they can’t afford to do X should do X”? Does he think this makes him sound smart?
bl_r@beehaw.org 11 months ago
Paywalled articles are still openly available if you politely email the researcher. While we should strive to have no barrier, if you can’t afford to publish openly those who need the research can still acquire it under the table. Having research unpublished because the researchers could not afford to pay the fee is worse than having the research published in a closed journal.
I’ve gotten a few dozen papers from closed journals that way, and I’ve never been told no.
ryannathans@aussie.zone 11 months ago
Or use scihub
TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz 11 months ago
if scihub went down academia would crumble
mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 months ago
My prof. said sci-hub is like banned and papers older than 2022 are not availiable. Is that true or thats only for some instances?
MonsiuerPatEBrown@reddthat.com 11 months ago
And if the author is from 1899 ?
TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz 11 months ago
then it’s your duty to sail the seven seas like it’s 1899
bl_r@beehaw.org 11 months ago
I’ve never considered that since I’m in cybersecurity, so the oldest paper I’ve seen that is from the late 80s. The majority is from the mid 90s onwards though, and due to the fast moving nature of the field anything that is old enough to have a dead author is likely out of date.
lunatic@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 months ago
Just because you’ve never been told no (n = 1) it doesn’t mean you’re guaranteed success. Authors aren’t obligated to do as you ask.
Haagel@lemmings.world 11 months ago
Venter is one of the many quacks who promised that he’d find the “aging gene” and switch it off. People threw a lot of money at him about twenty years ago.
Sabre363@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
Haven’t we known about the aging part of genes (telomeres) for like 80 years
Knusper@feddit.de 11 months ago
Hmm, I have no expertise in this field. I recently read that aging happens, because when cells replicate their DNA a gazillion times, then sometimes they introduce slight inaccuracies or mistakes, which I guess, means tons of tiny chunks of our body will have slightly different DNA from what we got born with…?
From the little I’ve just read about telomeres, it sounds like they help to prevent some of these mistakes. Is that you mean?
jadelord@discuss.tchncs.de 11 months ago
Well, he does have a point though. #OpenAccess
Footnote: Yeah, I saw that he had done some bad faith research, but remember open access is for everyone in the world, not just free rider corporate shills.
LillyPip@lemmy.ca 11 months ago
Hahaha 🙃🙁😖😭
hotkinkyjo@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Sanyanov@lemmy.world 11 months ago
As a person who just paid a fuckton of money to publish in open access (literally half an hour ago), that HURTS.
Open Access is good, but first we have to abolish an entire publisher industry that lays insurmountable costs - either on readers or researchers themselves. Their work is not remotely worth that money. By making it a public good, we can cut down on so much unnecessary expenses.
qyron@sopuli.xyz 11 months ago
Nestlé has been patenting human milk proteins for decades. To my understanding, this prevents other companies to add such molecules to baby formula, even if somehow methods to synthesize said molecules were developed.
That is a scary notion, a malevolous intent and a gross outcome.
ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world 11 months ago
These shouldn’t hold up. Wouldn’t the prior work of thousands of generations of mothers invalidate such a patent.
Darkard@lemmy.world 11 months ago
“Excuse me madam but do you have a license to use those tits? No? Didn’t think so. The content of those bazongas is Nestle property. I’m afraid I’m going to have to clamp those nipples until such time as the proper Bandonkadonk subscriptions are paid”
GenEcon@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Something doesn’t add up here since you can’t patent anything for decades.
jadero@mander.xyz 11 months ago
I read that as:
For decades, Nestle has been patenting milk proteins.
They’ve been doing it for a long time, not somehow getting extra-long patents.
qyron@sopuli.xyz 11 months ago
Seems like I messed up carrying over thoughts over language barrier.
Where was I unclear?
JackbyDev@programming.dev 11 months ago
Prior work exists, source: all of history lol
Capricorn_Geriatric@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Imagine Nestle executives finding a time machine and going to all of history’s most famous persons’ mothers and telling them how they can’t breastfeed their kids.
Someone should definitely write a book about that