Thanks, we had that issue but I think we just solved it by downclocking

Although, that would assume that companies don’t already trend towards doing so

This, apparently:

And this is the second oldest:

Pro tip: don’t. It’ll make you feel worse than if you just isolated yourself.

The incentive structure of dating apps is completely twisted and makes you feel like every part of yourself is getting commodified and ranked.

Find some social groups or clubs and go hang out there. You’ll have a much better time. Many people don’t mind if you aren’t comfortable with communicating, just being present is a positive in their book.

A broad statement like “trees consume carbon dioxide” would actually be an incredible paper to publish because it means that there is 1. a lot of interesting data that could back up a statement so broad and 2. extremely applicable to a wide variety of fields. When I say “uninteresting,” I really mean a very specific type of uninteresting, like "sunlight does not affect the growth of the fungus Neurospora crassa. " It’s uninteresting because it doesn’t really tell us what affects the growth of the fungus, only that sunlight does not. If you got this result, you likely wouldn’t even feel like it’s information that’s worth making public, hence the lack of papers that have these sorts of results. But, if it weren’t published, then grad students across the globe would keep testing sunlight and keep finding the same thing again and again, wasting time and money. Hence the argument that all data should be published, regardless of how useless the results are

No reason, I suppose. In my opinion it seems to just be a holdover from the previous systems of publishing. The prestige of a journal is ranked based on how often it gets cited (or in other words, how influential the papers are within the journal). Publishing insignificant/uninteresting data would lower a journal’s average citation count, which would make it seem less prestigious than other journals. Hence journals are incentivized to only publish interesting data. It’s a shitty system that everyone knows is shitty but nobody has a good solution for how to fix it

Survivorship bias is the idea that there might be an unknown filter that’s filtering the data before you even get to see it. In the case of the plane, that’s referring to a story from WW2, where planes returning from combat were recorded for where they were shot. Famously, the recommendation was to thicken the armor on places where the planes weren’t hit, because the “unknown filter” in this case is that if the plane were shot down, then you would never be able to record where bullets hit on that plane. Hence, the most important areas of the plane are actually the places that weren’t shot in the surviving planes.

In the case of the graph, this is a graph compiled from looking through a lot of papers and recording how significant a result is. Essentially a measure of how “interesting” the data is. Here, the unknown filter is that if a result weren’t interesting, then it wouldn’t get published. As a result, there’s a gap right in the middle of the graph, which is where the data is least interesting. In recent times, there’s been a philosophical argument that even uninteresting data should be published, so that at least it would prevent wasted time from multiple people attempting to do the same thing, each unaware that it’s already been done before. Hence the reason why people made the graph in the first place

Scientists don’t wait for mice to get cancer, then cure the cancer. That would be inefficient. They just force the mouse to get cancer instead. And cures are tested based on how quickly the mice die to the cancer with or without the drug

While that is true, I think those same selection biases also make the sub quite a poor source of actual advice.

1. The posts obviously only talk from the perspective of one party. This makes it very easy for responders to think that the other party is unequivocally bad. I remember several times where the OP seemed in the right, until the other party reveals that the OP was lying and manipulative.

2. Building on point 1, the type of people who would be willing to post their problems on social media tend to also be the type of people who would be unwilling or unable to consider the other party’s perspective.

3. People who browse r/relationshipadvice tend not to be the types of people who appreciate nuance, nor do they tend to notice discrepancies or omissions in the story. Where a normal person might ask for more details, a responder on this sub is more likely to “trust their gut” and fill in the gaps with what they assume has happened.

There are multiple times in which a post asks for advice about what appears to be a minor problem but then gets overwhelmed with “just break up” responses