If I was a good capitalist, I would release a line of spray paints containing a concentrated, strong acid so they would corrode the metal, leaving a mark after the paint was removed. Call it something stupid like "Muskoleum," "RustEloneum," or "Cybertruck Repair Spray"," but preferably something catchier.

Yeah, I feel like a good middle ground is to cite your previous work in the context of "as we previously reported," but maybe that's just based on something that was ingrained in me by academia. It seems tacky. My boss has no problem with it though, he's like, "idgaf, more citations, more views, higher impact."

Communism is when capitalism.

I have a boss who will remote to a meeting that takes place right outside his office, then come in-person to the next meeting that immediately follows in the same room. People like the flexibility.

I was kind of thinking of that with the institutional journal bit. It doesn't need to be a traditional journal, the only things important to me are:

1. peer review (skip #2)

2. open access

3. professional editors to help improve phrasing, spelling, flow, etc.

4. DOI link or similar unique identifier

I'm totally down to ditch the traditional journal format otherwise. It was just a quick comment not meant to go in-depth, but point out that we already have public institutions that can host publications.

I swear it's an official rule that reviewer 2 is required to be a huge pain in the ass.

Institutions could easily form their own journals. National organizations that provide grants could also require you to publish in their journal. Universities can run their own journals. These sorts of entities already exist and provide article access for free, publishing in them would just need to be normalized.

These are just a few options without researchers organizing anything for themselves.

It's all good.

No, no, your comments were clear. I was agreeing with you!

The loading screen tips also begin to change as you progress, going from normal tips to lines like, "So, you think you're a hero?"

I've had the same happen too. Most of the time, people just need someone to listen and help them find what they really care about and how they can do that for work. It really sucks when its someone you love to work with leaving, but it's also really nice to see them follow a path where they are much happier.

Funny thing for me was that it was some of these coaching sessions that helped me realize I was also on the wrong path. Returned to school for a degree I actively avoided before and ended up in a career that fit my values and desired work structure much more.

Seriously, it's way more expensive to replace someone unless they really suck. It's best to invest in the people you have whenever possible.

My background is US.

Ah yes, self-titled world's police.

your march towards authoritarianism worries me

Yeah, you may want to rethink that one given how the US acts.

---

Yeah, I poke fun at your comment, but I mostly want to push back on this idea of "authoritarianism." So here comes a bit of a rant, but hopefully a compelling one. The problem with authority isn't that it exists or that it is used, but who holds that authority, how it is used, and who benefits from how it is used.

Leadership stems from authority. Parenting stems from authority. Social contracts are upheld through their authority. Saying "no" is using a personal form of authority. The bartender cutting me off is an authoritarian act! You know what else is authoritarian? "Bringing democracy" to another country. (Seriously, how is that in any way democratic?)

Authority is just an active extension of power. Both authority and power are neutral. They aren't inherently good or bad, but they can be used for either. Good and bad themselves are mostly a matter of perspective, who do they affect and how are what we care about. How are people affected by authority, how that power is used, and who are affected by it are a few of the aspects that help shape what we view as good or bad use of authority.

So if whether authority and power are good or bad is dependent on how they are used, then it matters a whole lot who has that power and what their interests are. Do they share their interests with you? Do they share them with most people? Are they using that power to mainly benefit themselves or to benefit others?

I would say that it doesn't matter that power and authority exist and are used, they are a part of existence. Who has that power and their interests are what actually matter. Authoritarianism is an empty concept, lacking any real substance. Every decision you make is authoritarian. Upholding social contracts is authoritarian. Staging revolutions and quashing them are both authoritarian. ALL governments are authoritarian otherwise we could do whatever we wanted!

You live in the US, can you walk into a grocery store and a small amount of food because you need it? No, because it against the law. You must use US dollars. Can you go pay in a foreign currency or trade in other goods? No, unless the owners of the store forbid it. Can you diddle or traffick kids for other people to abuse? No, US laws forbids it (but they'll excuse it if you're rich enough, because money grants power). Can you walk into Congress or any business and use your authority to make them operate exactly as you want? No, you don't have that power.

Instead of focusing on the empty word, authoritarian, a word that is essentially, and often baselessly, used to mean "evil thing we don't agree with," we should instead be looking at who holds the power that lends that authority, what are the interests of those with power and whether those interests align with ours.

You don't like a government because it leans too far from your interests? That's a good reason not to like them. That's a good reason to go authoritarian on their asses. You don't like a government just because they use their authority? That's hypocritical. You use your authority all the time and may even do so to overthrow them...if you had the power.

This should not be down voted.

Those of you that are down voting this comment just because this skepticism doesn't match your worldview or what you were taught from a textbook (which never tell the whole story) should stop and do a bit of research on your own. There is plenty of accessible evidence that points to nitrogenous fertilizers harming the environment and contributing to global warming without even digging into primary scientific publications.

It doesn't mean that the comment about chemical fertilizers are wrong, that's a more difficult claim to check (fertilizers increase crop yields, but could we support our populations without them if we didn't focus on overproduction). That said, it's what's driving much of the recent research into alternative fertilization methods right now. Chemical fertilizers are damaging and we need alternatives.

We did an experiment in my microbiology teaching lab once where we made cell cultures from some food we had blended without washing first, comparing spinach to raw hamburger.

The spinach was worse. MUCH worse. It also had nastier types of cultures that popped up. I have always washed my veggies thoroughly since that day.

I used to have a boss that told me you never fire the person who made that expensive accident because you know that's one person who will never make that mistake again.

Anyone who isn't white, cis, and heteronormative is excluded to some extent by American society. If they aren't treated as "true" Americans, then you saying you want to nuke Americans would already exclude nuking those that Americans themselves chose to exclude.

I just meant you didn't need to explicitly say you wouldn't also nuke comrades.

Damn, the Krackkker Capital needs to step up it's propaganda game if this is what the competition's look like. That shit is dope.

How can you listen to the prodigy and not want to dance?

Can't include the people that Amerikkka already purposely excluded, so they weren't targeted by your comment? Idk how to phrase it better rn.