Core discussion of Martha Stewart's latest missteps please, I am confused:
Time's 100 people list includes Pardis Sabeti, blurb covering a single experiment (an important one, sequencing ebola in individual patients to determine mode of transmission) by Craig Venter.
Also, Kim Kardashian, blurb by Martha Stewart, who writes "#fame". Martha is clever, it's disappointing to me that this is how she's exerting herself. I didn't care much about Time before, and I care less now.
Links:
http://time.com/3822958/pardis-sabeti-2015-time-100/
http://time.com/3822676/kim-kardashian-west-2015-time-100/
Why not a guest post over a thread jack? What an egregious etiquette misstep!
Sorry Heebie-- in my mind it was topical, since along with empty threads about Daesh, there are empty threads about ephemera also.
No offense intended. I sent it a few days ago, and thought it was funny enough that I wanted to share somewhere.
Oh god, you did. Now I'm embarrassed. I didn't tag it as a submission and it got buried. My apologies.
But when it comes to looking smart and knowing what's going on in the world, having a core group here is like nothing else in the world.
We love you, too, Heebie.
You would not believe how smart I look IRL!
Huh, looks like Time articles on the website have a serial unique ID-- truncating the URLS to terminate on an integer works.
That's unusual-- it makes it easier to link and to scrape the website for content, easier to detect any retracted material and to link to old material. Nice, much preferable to usual periodical practice of transient URLs with no indication of record lifetime, and pay archives accessible only via the publication's searches or third party subscription databases.
Not enough to counterbalance their paying Grover fucking Norquist to write and then sharing the result, but still.
Unfogged is a place where there are people who don't call Daesh 'ISIS.'
That is pretty special.
Just... got something in my eye, just give me a moment...
It seems like a good article, but I was disappointed that "Social Networks" wasn't a euphemism for Chinese cell phone erotica.
Fo a study of whether relationship are likely to be stable in the long term, a sample group consisting solely of first year graduate students may not be the most representative choice. Just saying.
Unfogged people are smarter than average, yeah, but its really the comparison to my Facebook feed that makes y'all look like Nobel Laureates. And you know, the people I'm Friends with there aren't even particularly dumb, I just think that somehow that platform has a structural bias toward promoting shallow conversation. On this platform, by contrast, there appears to be a structural bias toward long, arcane intellectual discussions, and dick jokes.
I think it also works with "...such as dick jokes."
On this platform, by contrast, there appears to be a structural bias toward long, arcane intellectual discussions, and dick jokes.
What counts as, "long" has shifted over time though. There was an era in which comment threads were faster moving and people would make, "apologies for the long comment" disclaimers for writing more than 6 lines or so.
13: Long ago I had a theory that unfogged remained relatively troll-free because the threads moved so fast that trollish comments just got left behind.
Twitter, of course, proved that theory totally wrong.
14: It's because we're all trolls here.
Twitter trolls are more directed, though, generally targeted at individuals. Trolls here are just pissing in the dark.
Shit's different when there are widgets lighting up to tell you there are individual notifications with content specially for you... and when that content is from trolls, its a lot more likely to get under your skin. Here, its all shouting into the wilderness, so you don't have to take it as personally. The lack of individual notifications has become a relatively unique feature of this site, and I think its actually a strength.
Ha! A justified use of "relatively unique"! Take that, pedants.