The resemblance is uncanny.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
The resemblance is uncanny.
I am relieved that I am not a gay or trans person, since this country is getting worse and worse at dealing with its raging homophobia/transphobia. Even in Minnesota we’ve got self-righteous busybodies harassing people on mere suspicion that they aren’t straight and cis. You can’t even go to a restaurant without someone demanding to inspect your breasts.
According to Gender Justice attorneys, Gerika Mudra went out for dinner with a friend at a Buffalo Wild Wings location in Owatonna. She went to the restroom, and a server allegedly followed her and banged on the door, calling her a man and yelling at her to leave.
Attorneys say Mudra unzipped her sweatshirt to show the server her chest.
In a statement, Mudra said she was shocked by the server’s behavior.
I’m wondering what grounds the server had for pounding on the door if she had been a trans woman? What cause does anyone have for interrupting someone who is peeing? Is that a crime?
It’s not just trans folk who are under attack. Remember Kim Davis, the awful religious kook who refused to do her job as a county clerk and would not issue marriage licenses to gay couples? She’s back. She is petitioning the Supreme Court to overthrow the Obergefell v Hodges decision that legalized gay marriage.
Ten years after the Supreme Court extended marriage rights to same-sex couples nationwide, the justices this fall will consider for the first time whether to take up a case that explicitly asks them to overturn that decision.
Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who was jailed for six days in 2015 after refusing to issue marriage licenses to a gay couple on religious grounds, is appealing a $100,000 jury verdict for emotional damages plus $260,000 for attorneys fees.
This is preliminary. The court could review the petition in the fall and decide not to take up the case…but come on. This court? It’s packed with conservative kooks who are slavering at the thought of overturning gay rights. They want to roll back everything, and they’ve shown willingness. Brown v. Board of Education? Loving v. Virginia? They don’t feel secure anymore.
It’s not just court cases. This administration is willing to deny people they don’t like their rightfully earned rewards.
The U.S. Air Force said Thursday it would deny all transgender service members who have served between 15 and 18 years the option to retire early and would instead separate them without retirement benefits. One Air Force sergeant said he was “betrayed and devastated” by the move.
I have no confidence in anything gained in citizen’s rights in this country since the Civil War.
Fall semester begins next week. That means that we’re having all kinds of meetings this week.
I just got back from a morning of meetings. Tomorrow will be worse: I’ll be in meetings all day long.
But wait, you say, aren’t you on sabbatical? I am, but it’s a one semester leave, I have to get back in the saddle in January, and they present a lot of new stuff at the start of fall term, including some significant changes to the Morris Core Curriculum, so I had to show up this week so that I’m not clueless for spring term.
It was not fun. I found myself thinking that Aristotle never had to count credits, but I’m feeling like I’m supposed to be an accountant, with 7 (or is it 8?) categories that students have to work through in order to graduate. We also were given a 10-page assortment of information that we must include in our syllabi…which has me wondering, if every single class every term has to include all this same stuff, isn’t that a massive duplication of effort? And are any students going to bother to read all this repetitive material, most of which has nothing to do with the content of my courses? Twenty five years ago, when I started here, every syllabus had a paragraph or two of boilerplate at the end, with a link to where the student can get more details.
Now the curriculum is a collection of fiddly little details and every syllabus has a massive addendum that dwarfs the actual description of course content.
Good thing I just have one more day of administrative noise, and then 15+ weeks of blissful spider research which might reduce my cranky surliness a bit.
But don’t count on it.
Using the pretext of one mugging of one of his cronies, Donald Trump is sending 800 National Guard troops to take over Washington DC. This is a gross overreaction on his part, but it’s his first impulse: let’s use unnecessary force in inappropriate ways to punish a blue city. It’s disgusting, it’s undemocratic, it’s un-American, it’s tinpot tyranny.
The defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, who was among officials joining Trump on the podium, said 800 national guard troops would take to the streets of Washington over the coming week. “They will be strong, they will be tough and they will stand with their law enforcement partners,” he said.
Trump, who lost the presidential election in DC to Democrat Kamala Harris by 86 percentage points, added that he may send in the military “if needed”.
By invoking section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, the president is federalising DC’s Metropolitan police department for the first time in its history. He said he was declaring a public safety emergency and putting the police under the control of the attorney general, Pam Bondi.
Trump vowed to allow police to “do whatever the hell they want” in the face of provocations. “That’s the only language they [alleged criminals] understand. They like to spit in the face of the police. You spit, and we hit, and they get hit real hard.”
No, you cannot allow the police to do whatever they want. The police are required to be bound by the rule of law. Sending in the military is a criminal act by a lawless, corrupt president.
Washington DC is just his test case. If he is allowed to get away with this, you’re next.
The road to authoritarianism is littered with people telling you you’re overreacting.
Tim Walz knows Trump is itching to send the army in to crush all those cities that voted Democratic — you can bet Minneapolis and Seattle and Portland are also high on his hit list.
This is a fascist takeover. React appropriately.
We know we have a lot of bats living above our garage — it’s non-trivial to check, though. There’s an access panel in the garage ceiling and you need to use a ladder to climb up there. But I imagine it might look a little like this if you climbed up and rummaged around behind the insulation.
I think maybe we’ll leave our bat colony alone.
It’s cute how the awareness that Jordan Peterson is just a cranky, opinionated ass is slowly seeping into the general zeitgeist.
Don’t worry that this perception is going to hurt Peterson. I’ve found estimates of his net worth that range from $10 million to $90 million. He really should just sit back, hang out with his family, take long vacations, maybe get a hobby (spider watching is a good one). We’d all be better for it.
This is what NASA does. They launch stuff to smash into asteroids, and I’m here for it. Here’s a video of the final seconds of the DART space probe, before it smashed into the asteroid moonlet Dimorphos (Dimorphos orbits a larger asteroid, Didymos). Wheee!
That video ends abruptly, as you’d expect. The probe launched a separate camera to record the collision, though, and that looks like this:
Very pretty. All those rocks and dust streaming out of the moonlet…
It’s since been acting a bit weird, although more accurately, we ought to say that it acted unpredictably. The moonlet exhibited a slight slow deceleration for a prolonged period.
The DART team has since confirmed that Dimorphos did indeed continue slowing in its orbit up to a month after the impact — however, their calculations show an additional slowdown of 15 seconds, rather than a full minute. A month after the DART collision, the slowdown plateaued.
What caused Dimorphos to slow steadily for a month, before reaching equilibrium? A swarm of space rocks could be to blame: Recent observations of the asteroid have revealed a vast field of boulders — likely shaken loose from Dimorphos’ surface during the impact — strewn about the area. It’s possible that some of the larger boulders fell back onto Dimorphos within that first month, slowing its orbit further than anticipated, DART team member Harrison Agrusa told New Scientist.
I guess we have another reason to think the movie Armageddon was schlock. We can’t calculate the ultimate outcome of space collisions — there are just too many parameters.
My impression of the ex-CNN news announcer, Jim Acosta, was that he at least had some principles. He quit cable news, after all, and that’s a positive mark in my estimation. Unfortunately, he has now indulged in the cheapest, sleaziest, most ghoulish stunt of his career.
If you are sufficiently prolific on the internet, people can take your stored writings and videos and build a model of “you”. For instance, I would be good candidate for this kind of program — over 30 years of nearly daily commentary, all stored in online databases, you could probably make a decent predictive model of my internet behavior. Would it be “me”? No. It would be a crude simulacrum of just my public persona. You could also take the voluminous writings of St Augustine or Albert Einstein and make a similar model, but it would all just be window dressing and wouldn’t actually “be” the person.
Some grieving parents compiled the internet output of one of the students killed in the Parkland shooting into a video talking head. I can sort of understand the desire — they want to hear their child’s voice again — and it’s the same sort of impulse that would make someone preserve an answering machine voice message so they can hear a loved one again after their demise. It’s not the person, though, it’s an echo, a memory of someone.
So Acosta “interviewed” the model of a dead student.
Jim Acosta, former chief White House correspondent for CNN, stirred controversy on Monday when he sat for a conversation with a reanimated version of a person who died more than seven years ago. His guest was an avatar of Joaquin Oliver, one of the 17 people killed in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school mass shooting in Parkland, Florida, in 2018.
The video shows Oliver, captured via a real photograph and animated with generative artificial intelligence, wearing a beanie with a solemn expression. Acosta asks the avatar: “What happened to you?”
I feel like asking Acosta “What happened to you?”
“I appreciate your curiosity,” Oliver answers in hurried monotone without inflection or pauses for punctuation. “I was taken from this world too soon due to gun violence while at school. It’s important to talk about these issues so we can create a safer future for everyone.” The avatar’s narration is stilted and computerized. The movements of its face and mouth are jerky and unnatural, looking more like a dub-over than an actual person talking.
Ick. Why not dig up his corpse, attach marionette strings, and have a conversation with it? That wasn’t Joaquin Oliver. The only insight you are going to get from it is possibly the interpretations of the person who compiled the code.
Here’s another example:
Others have likewise used AI avatars to simulate the speech of victims of crimes. In May, an AI version of a man who was killed in a road rage incident in Arizona appeared in a court hearing. Lawyers played an AI video of the victim addressing his alleged killer in an impact statement. “I believe in forgiveness, and a God who forgives. I always have and I still do,” the victim’s avatar said.
The presiding judge responded favorably. “I loved that AI, thank you for that. As angry as you are, as justifiably angry as the family is, I heard the forgiveness,” he said. “I feel that that was genuine.”
Jesus. That was not evidence before the law — that was an appeal to the judge’s sentimentality, and it worked.
If you follow RetractionWatch, you know that there a lot of bad papers published in the scientific literature. But there you just see the steady drip, drip, drip of bad research getting exposed, a paper at a time. If you step back and look at the overall picture, you begin to see the source. A lot of it comes from paper mills and bad actors conspiring to allow their pals to publish trash.
(PubPeer is a site that allows post-publication peer review and catches many examples of bad science.)
Nature jumped on an analysis of the people behind swarms of retracted papers on PLoS One, and exposed some of the editors. The problem can be pinned on a surprisingly small number of researchers/editors.
Nearly one-third of all retracted papers at PLoS ONE can be traced back to just 45 researchers who served as editors at the journal, an analysis of its publication records has found.
The study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) on 4 August, found that 45 editors handled only 1.3% of all articles published by PLoS ONE from 2006 to 2023, but that the papers they accepted accounted for more than 30% of the 702 retractions that the journal issued by early 2024. Twenty-five of these editors also authored papers in PLoS ONE that were later retracted.
The PNAS authors did not disclose the names of any of the 45 editors. But, by independently analysing publicly available data from PLoS ONE and the Retraction Watch database, Nature’s news team has identified five of the editors who handled the highest number of papers that were subsequently retracted by the journal. Together, those editors accepted about 15% of PLoS ONE’s retracted papers up to 14 July.
Wow. These are people who betrayed the responsibilities of a professional scientist. They need to be exposed and rooted out…but they also reflect a systemic issue.
The study reveals how individuals can form coordinated networks and work under the guise of editorial duty to push large amounts of problematic research into the scientific literature, in some cases with links to paper mills — businesses that churn out fake papers and sell authorship slots.
Yeah, it’s all about money. And also about the use of publications for professional advancement.
So, about the individuals who are committing these perfidious activities…Nature identified many, but I’ll just single out one as an example.
In their analysis of PLoS ONE’s publication records, Richardson and his colleagues identified 19 researchers — based in 4 countries — who served as academic editors between 2020 and 2023, and repeatedly handled each other’s submissions. More than half of the papers they accepted were later retracted, with nearly identical notices citing concerns about authorship, peer review and competing interests.
Nature’s analysis identified 3 of those 19 editors. Shahid Farooq, a plant biologist at Harran University in Şanlıurfa, Turkey, topped the list of PLoS ONE editors ordered by the number of retracted papers that they handled. Between 2019 and 2023, Farooq was responsible for editing 79 articles, 52 of which were subsequently retracted. All of the retraction notices stated that the papers were “identified as one of a series of submissions” for which the journal had concerns about authorship, competing interests and peer review. Farooq also co-authored seven articles in PLoS ONE that were later retracted with identical retraction notices.
That’s a batting record that ought to discredit all of Farooq’s work, and ought to taint all of his coauthors and the researchers who had their work “reviewed” by him. Fortunately for all of us, he has lost all of his editorial duties.
Farooq says that PLoS ONE removed him from the editorial board in 2022, and that he subsequently resigned from his editorial positions in other journals, including Frontiers in Agronomy and BMC Plant Biology.
My editing experience has changed to not editing any paper for any publisher, as the publishers become innocent once any issues are raised on the published papers,he added.
That’s a remarkable excuse: he got caught, so it’s all the publishers’ fault.
Purging a few bad apples isn’t going to fix the issues, because the problem is only getting worse.
In the PNAS paper, Richardson and his colleagues compiled a list of 32,786 papers that they and other sleuths flagged for bearing hallmarks of paper-mill production, such as duplicated images, tortured phrases and whole copied sentences. Only 8,589 of these papers have been retracted. They report that the number of suspected paper-mill articles is doubling every 1.5 years — outpacing the number of retractions, which is doubling every 3.3 years.
Hey, you know, this is where AI could be really useful — I think a lot of these fraudsters are using AI to generate the AI-slop papers, but we could turn it around and use AI to detect the conspiratorial web of collaborating authors as well as the bad writing in these papers.
At least the caterpillars are thriving.
