very_poggers_gay
@very_poggers_gay@hexbear.net
- Comment on evangelism 6 months ago:
Yes, but that does not mean AI has 0 influence. Rather, AI is a circle, a shape with no beginning or end, suggesting that AI has endless and infinite potential. Now, let’s say you want to remove AI from the equation - imagining a world without AI. What happens when you divide by zero? You can’t, because dividing by zero is undefined. Thusly, a world (future or past) without AI is now an impossibility. This is simply the laws of mathematics.
- Property Manager, AI Consultant
- Comment on internet points 1 year ago:
Oh absolutely. It’s a huge issue, especially in humanities and social sciences, where the barrier of entry makes it so that almost all published research is conducted by certain populations on themselves. Some people call it “WEIRD” populations, meaning western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (though that “weird” terminology is a bit stinky… I’m looking at the “E” and “D”). Interestingly, China has now overtaken the US in publishing the most highly cited research of any country, though I think their advances are mostly in natural sciences and engineering.
There are also issues with how we qualify good quality or *academic * research. Again, this is especially the case in social sciences and humanities where the standards have been set by colonial researchers who had the means to run expensive studies on large samples. As a result, a lot of research methodologies and ways of knowing that don’t align with the western colonial standards (e.g., qualitative research, narrative analysis) get discounted or written off entirely
- Comment on internet points 1 year ago:
Yup, I’ve got a paper that’s just about ready for submission, and if the journal accepts it for publication, we pay ~3k USD, so about $4k CAD.
- Comment on Joy 1 year ago:
Researchers need to afford to live, and that money comes from research grants.
Not really and certainly not directly. Almost all research grants (at least in Canada and the EU) are for the costs of running research, not for the PI’s salary, which their institution pays. I know those two can’t be separated, but the point is still true that most of the grant money that individual researchers apply for can only be spent on conducting research. It is not for them to live, it is for them to do their job.
If this was even a problem, which it isn’t,
What do you mean by this part?
The neoliberal logic consuming academia is bad for academia as a whole, and anyone who can stand to benefit from higher education and/or quality research (i.e., practically everyone everywhere). Almost anyone working on research in academia is severely underpaid and they’re expected to work countless hours for free. Academia is a house of cards help together by the grindset of graduate students and early- or mid-career researchers.
The ways that grunts and funding are allocated are deeply flawed, and fields that aren’t tied to profitable industries (e.g., “life sciences” like biology and chemistry) are severely underfunded. See:
The only winners in the current system are the profit-driven capitalists who fund research for good PR and ‘passive’ income, and the few others in academia who game funding systems to cash out on shitty dead-end or naively idealist research
- Comment on Hexbear federation megathread 1 year ago:
maybe about politics but not about a tv show or harmless interest 🤝
- Comment on Hexbear federation megathread 1 year ago:
I (and I’m sure tons of community members from different communities) appreciate how responsive you’ve been throughout the thread, and I just want to share a thought to your reply. You said:
I think this question is bait, but I will answer in good faith with an example to hopefully drive the point home.
Posting “[hammer and sickle] 10 reasons why we need communism…” is clearly not Kremlin propaganda. Posting “[hammer and sickle] Ukraine shouldn’t even exist, long live CCCP” is clearly Kremlin propanda.
This example is like a 10/10 easy slam dunk, but I think the concern that many users have about alleging “Kremlin propaganda” is that there are an infinite amount of examples that are much harder, if not impossible, to clearly distinguish. It’s these grey areas, which are also far more common, that prompt different degrees of skepticism or uncertainty about the terminology and its application.
- Comment on Hexbear federation megathread 1 year ago:
Hi, I’ll try and share my 2 cents here bear-chill
Is Hexbear a former left-wing “forum” now taken over by fascist trolls?
Big no. Hexbear is made up of a diverse group of people whose political views generally fall under one or more of the big umbrellas of “communism” or “socialism”. Users on hexbear also hold and exchange a wide range of views about the USSR and Russia. Despite the range of views on some issues, we are explicitly anti-capitalist and anti-fascist (and generally speaking, we use these terms mindfully; i.e., we don’t call everything we don’t like _______), and we love our trans comrades.
In OP’s post and in your reply, I can’t help but focus on the term “kremlin propaganda”. I’m not the most well-read person ever, so I have trouble understanding what they mean by the term. Whether the “Kremlin” is in reference to the USSR of old or today’s Russia is unclear - and I think that is a worthwhile distinction. Also, many hexbear users have been accused of spreading “propaganda” when posting anything remotely political, especially if it counters the prevailing narratives of the US, NATO, etc. Hopefully a more knowledgeable user can provide some clarity on what is (and isn’t) “kremlin propaganda”?
- Comment on Hexbear federation megathread 1 year ago:
You’re right, because when Oregon became a state, they made it illegal for black people to even live in the state.
You are not your state, but your intellectual dishonesty about its racist history (which you likely benefit from) because “slavery illegal” doesn’t portray you favourably
