Itte’s A Complete Disgrace That Science Published A Non-Scientific Propaganda Piece Authored By Employees Of Faceshitte

Researchers employed by Faceshitte just published this paper in Science, entitled “Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook”. The basic gist of this paper is the claim that their analysis of ideological slant of what Faceshitte users click on in their newsfeeds supposedly supports that conclusion that it is users’ own ideological inclinations that determines the ideological slant of what they click on more than Faceshitte’s newsfeed algorithms.

I’m not even gonna get into the details of their methodology and the validity of their conclusions from their analyses. This is very well treated by Nathan Jurgenson at Cyborgology, and I recommed his analysis highly. My concern with this paper is more fundamental.

As a scientist, I have a big problem with a legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journal publishing a paper authored by employees of a corporation that describes their analysis of the outcomes of a secret proprietary algorithm controlled by that corporation as if the algorithm is some static, knowable law of nature. When the authors refer to “algorithms”, they are basically lying. Because the day this paper was published, Facebook could have completely changed all of their news feed algorithms, and rendered this paper completely moot.

As scientists, of course we are comfortable dealing with unknowns and even the unknowable as we pursue understanding of complicated natural entities. But these “algorithms” being analyzed by the Faceshitte employees in their manuscript are completely knowable, indeed are known to these researchers’ employer, yet are treated as a black box that can only be studied indirectly by examining its outputs. This is disingenuous in the extreme, and turns the notion of “science” on its head.

I am disgusted at Science for publishing this non-scientific propaganda piece.

Jeezus Punishes The Cross Pointe Free Will Baptist Church With Botulism

I wonder what these fuckers did to pisse offe godde? Anyway, they must have deserved it, right? Godde’s will, right?

Down from an earlier estimate, Kennedy said there were 18 suspected cases, including the woman who died. The youngest patient is 9 years old; the oldest is 87. Twenty-one people are under hospital observation as a precaution, the spokesman said.

Five patients are in critical condition and 10 were taken to hospitals in Columbus, according to Fairfield Medical Center in Lancaster.

Home Seltzer Question

I have one of these isi home seltzer maker dealios that takes about one liter of water and you screw an 8 gram CO2 cartridge to charge it. If I want the seltzer to be more carbonated, is it safe and effective to charge it with second cartridge? I can’t find anything on the Internet, and I neither want to explode my dealio nor waste cartridges if charging with a second one won’t dissolve more CO2 in the water.

Taking Notes At Meetings

There’s a very thoughtful post by drmsscientist at Tenure She Wrote about the gendered nature of being asked or otherwise expected to take notes at meetings.

Here’s the set up:

I take a lot of notes. I take them every single day, in both research and in meetings. Depending on what I’m doing, these notes are electronic or handwritten. When I meet with my students, I take notes on what they are doing, then transcribe my own action items to a separate “to-do” list and file that note page away. When I’m in meetings with colleagues, I’m usually taking notes on my computer or iPad. Some times these notes float away into the ether, but in general, I find my notes super useful, in so many ways. I’ve used them to jog my memory about what else happened in the meeting, to figure out who made a specific comment to follow up on later, sometime even just to provide context to my overall day. They are also, it turns out, also useful to my colleagues and in general, I will happily send my notes along if someone requests them*.

But recently, I’ve been involved in a few groups where the gendered nature of note taking was almost laughable.

And later she asks:

But what to do about the gendered aspects of this? I don’t want to stop taking notes since it’s useful to me, nor do I want to not make those notes available if they can be helpful. And really, it’s not that I shouldn’t be taking notes, it’s just that everyone in the room should also be taking their own instead of relying on me or those like me. More sets of notes on the same topic is never a bad thing since people note different things. This is where I hit up against a wall. I have control over my own behavior but not over that of others. Do I subtly try to encourage EVERYONE at the meetings to take notes, then send them to me for compiling? The first might be good, but the second is just another form of housework. Do I simply say “no” when asked whether I can take notes? This doesn’t work because I often already AM taking notes and it’s difficult to be surreptitious about it. Do I laugh it off and say I’m terrible at it and they’d better ask someone else?

Here’s my suggestion: I think it would be perfectly reasonable to respond to an unwanted (or even wanted) request to take notes, “The notes that I routinely take are very informal and just for jogging my own memory. If we agree that it would be useful to have authoritative notes taken at our meetings, let’s discuss a formal mechanism for getting this done.” This way you completely prevent your taking notes from becoming the path of least resistance for the group. And you also force recognition that taking notes is valuable work and should be acknowledged as such.