so a no catharsis rule?

i did not say you are the bad guy, i am just saying, your comment did not add anything. I can see deleted stuff, and it was pretty bad (lets leave at that). nothing personal or anything like that.

So you think that like 30 people said it was deeply transphobic, but it wasn’t?

Never said that, i just said you don’t know what they wrote (which you admitted to, which is absolutely fine) but then you add that it must be bad, which was already evident. If i point something wrong about your comment does not make anything original deleted content right. you both can be wrong (at least in my opinion) because we are talking about totally orthogonal stuff.

without even knowing what they wrote, hating on it is not cool. you are just saying hivemend is right. it may or may not be. but whatever it was, you saying it is shitty adds nothing

also, can you please go through some other comments regarding polotical news. I wanted to discuss with all mods, but you replied here, so that reduces job by some amount

constitution is just fancy speak. I was dramatizing a lot.

I want something similar to how blaze replied for good news everyone. Just a sort 3-4 rules.

I will try to message other mods before actually changing rules, but yes

i don’t know a better way

the current problem with journals is that there is no money in it for authors. journals oly exist because of historical reasons, and older folks still value them.

Arxiv exists as a semi journal, which is some what cc4 (or some other cc of your choice) and that is great, but still one source.

You can just host your research papers as websites, as in just a web article, and use some vcs like github, codeberg, or self hosted forego system. That is arguably the best case.

I have a paper which is on arxiv, and my supervisor has been “polishing” it for a journal, but to me that is a useless process, because i almost never care about things like journal impact factor or h index. to me, the only thing valide is steps for reproducibility, that is, give me a recipe, and if i can recreate, then you did a great job. This could mean, for example, releasing all your raw unprocessed data.

how to handle reputation for who can review, but I think there are ways to do that and that’s beyond the scope of this post as I imagine it could get pretty complicated and would require feedback from people actually in the industry. The reviewers can submit comments and reviews back to the author via federation, but this time the process can be open instead of behind closed doors.

one of the reasons reviewers are effective is that the remain anonymous, that is why they can shit talk a lot. You would not have the slander, if you make the identity real.

I think we should not have reputation or verification, as i stated above, if you post on your own website, and not have gatekeeping. Yes a lot of the work may not meet “some standards”. but even with current system, a lot of work is published which is substandard. if we can release work in open, and colaborate as we do for open source software, thart would be the ideal thing for me. Each issue could be a literal git issue, each correction can be a pull request, and so on. Fully transparent, and somewhat resistant to whole network failing. (assuming you have local copies, you can just spin another instance, and your paper still stays onloine)

this is my work. Our revious results showed correct trend, but, r^2 = 0.2. Got literally laughed at.

in simplification, you could derive that curvature of the orbit is basically the force between objects, with radius, from the centre of mass. Once you know curvature at a point, you ca define a series of curves fitting, and substitute with other postions to find all constants. And what is curvature? you can find online, that curvature is just a function of second order derivative, and you just have to solve a second degree differential equation.

not everyone has email adress with same user id as email (maybe is taken up or something(yes i know most people do get mail of choice, and in case of clash, people add some birth date or year, but still))

dr queso grande

i partially agree, but there are times where my own judgement is not good, and hence i want a somewhat object ruleset, which a majority amount of poulation agrees to. If i do all i want all will nilly, i would be a dictator. Now i could be a benovalent kind, but lets be honest, most are not, and i am no special human

it is “free” if you sail the seas

(but even if yo do everything legally, alcohol can be very expensive)

you can use pressurised air to clean the duct. Some verterbrates like to call it farts

and much cheaper/healthier too

that is close, but that is not quite exact. To a bad person, bad can happen, but through a just way, what i look to say is, we should not loose our humanity in the worst situations, and one of its parts is empathy. so bad happening to bad person maybe is bad because it is not through a just action, but lets say someone causing them personal trauma. If it happens by their own doing, that may still be “just” (in a self serving manner).

thank you, that is very much helpful. You have put what i have been feeling in a very clear manner

i am sorry, but the fictional stuff was necessity. Essentially the post is trying to ask you define uplifting things. But a subjective definition of a human emotion is very hard to base objective rules on, so i have posed many questions. basically questions would define a this is not uplifting limit for posts. It is mostly about politics, and when people bring in political preference and alignment for and against, they basically stop thinking. For more context, please go through other comments where i do go a bit more direct, but some amount of haziness was intentional.

Basically this post stemmed out from a post regarding “musk being depresssed” (now deleted) which is not uplifting to me, and so i asked in comments does this post belong here, and i also got down voted hard there. So i made this post trying to understanding what do people expect when they mean uplifiting. If i would have used words musk or trump people swing hard, and even if you make a statement not related to them, but somewhere they or anyone made any related statement, people swing hard again. I somewhat get why people do this, they are mad at them, which is fine, but they just do not really want to have a constructive discussion.

If you can help me draft a better way to put all this, then that would be very welcome and appreciated, languages (speaking and writing) is definitely not my best skill, i keep going away from my main points, and i really suck at drafting concise and neat stuff.

thank you, i would not really add that rule, too specific, what i can discuss with other mods is too either add a no politics rule, or just add a no catharsis (or something) similar rule