Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Routing around it. (Score 1) 474 474

Reddit is hypocritical, sure. They shouldn't allow any of it, or all of it and face the music. I'm in favor of the first. Away with all those haters. Let them set up their own site where they can spew their venom.

About censorship: saying "we're no longer going to facilitate you trolling and harassing" isn't censorship, when there are other ways of expressing a dislike of obese people that are not banned. Unless you're really strict about it, but then you could even argue that not allowing user names longer than 255 characters is censorship.

Comment: Re:Routing around it. (Score -1, Troll) 474 474

It isn't censorship. If they want to spout their fathate somewhere, they can build their own site. As far as I'm concerned, the current measures don't go far enough. There are still subreddits like coontown, skinnypeoplehate, cuteabortions, etc. Repulsive.

Comment: Re:Not surprising at all... (Score 1) 364 364

I think the physicists were jealous of the social sciences. In parts of it, you can really just write anything, and in other parts, just a minor experiment that has an outcome that could possibly be seen as an affirmation is enough. And then you can publish all the clickbait you want, and without all that studying and math. It's a brave, new world!

Comment: That test is unscientific (Score 3, Informative) 295 295

The implicit bias test used is controversial, to say the least. According to mainstream cognitive psychology, it measures temporary perceptual associations via priming. These do not have a causal relation with higher level opinions. The effect can be caused by something as uninteresting as the local way of referring to science and scientists.

Methods? They had a large number of factors to correlate with their data: 25 (possibly a few more, depending on what you read), and ran a multiple regression over it, and are reporting an effect for every p .05. That's bad science at multiple levels.

It's just another fishing expedition.

Comment: Re:Rust made a mistake in going C++-syntax (Score 1) 149 149

I see. Printf is a bit of a weird function: perhaps they need a better macro syntax. Expanding at compile time is safe, so a good language for that might overcome (part of) these problems.

> it will actually become common and necessary to "do ugly things" in order to get stuff done in real-world applications.

Quite likely. But if that can be kept to a minimum, possibly shielded behind macros and the likes, and the rest of the code can achieve good performance, then we might have won something.

Comment: Re:Rust made a mistake in going C++-syntax (Score 2) 149 149

> A simple printf function has to be a macro

I don't see anything wrong with that. Actually, it sounds quite sensible: it gets rid of some ugly variable arguments handling code, but still keeps the source readable. For the rest: Rust is an interesting idea, but doesn't look ideal. Apparently, it does not interface well with C++, only C, but mixing with C++ could be a good start. Rewrite some buggy code in Rust where it makes sense while keeping the rest in C++.

Comment: Re:In whose interest is this? (Score 1) 29 29

Come on. This kind of front page publicity is very, very rare. Two days, no less. And this research has been done before. And in general, one or two experiments are not going to reveal the ultimate truth, so why the sudden interest in this?

> Because this research is interesting for humans who reproduce and attempt to teach their offspring to act like adult human beings in 18 years or so.

So because the staff is interested in it personally? Then just write so upfront. "I'm personally interested in this."

Comment: Don't!! (Score 1) 51 51

Don't crowdfund research. It's bad for publicly funded research. As soon as the government, the universities and the grant organizations find out that crowdfunding works, they'll cut budgets or make their funding dependent on privately acquired money. That means only public darlings will get funded, or projects with corporate backing, and that the research results can end up in a drawer if there are larger backers that have made such provisions. In short, by funding research, you're killing it. Instead, write your congressman or member of parliament.

It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.

Working...