brainchip.bsky.social
Australian Researcher in Microfluidics, Neuroscience, and Health.
65 posts
91 followers
240 following
Getting Started
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Very useful in specific image segmentation/processing algorithms
comment in response to
post
One of the other bullet points mentions certificates for a thesis. I have heard of professional proofreading being required for a thesis before.
I feel like for journal articles it should be possible for an editor to fix any issues? Surely journals have the right staff for that.
comment in response to
post
So what can courts even do? Trump won't be impeached and can't be prosecuted after.
comment in response to
post
Even Republicans liked USAID. Makes no sense to throw out a program that gives so much soft power in the best way possible, by actually helping people.
comment in response to
post
This man wants to ethnically cleanse Gaza for some beachfront property. Insane.
comment in response to
post
Exciting times ahead for academics on this platform (hopefully!)
comment in response to
post
Is it confirmed R1 runs so cheaply? If so, now that it's freely available, it will provide a great research tool.
It seems the market is responding based on hype and feelings (again).
comment in response to
post
I have explained why your statements were wrong in the simplest of terms. Time for me to move on and for you to refresh some of that education.
comment in response to
post
I'm passing judgement on you not being able to (1) differentiate between techniques patterning hydrogels versus cells, (2) not recognising obvious photoshop, (3) not knowing you shouldn't do that, (4) just randomly quoting terms from a paper, (5) needing to rely on the fame of a senior author...
comment in response to
post
Many of the factors that will provide financial stability and growth for Nvidia are still there.
Hype is ballooning the stock market and making it more and more unstable - even when there is no reason for it.
comment in response to
post
This is you not engaging with the matter at hand. I would also guess the beamplot is not yours, since you are shockingly far off understanding the techniques at hand.
I would suggest taking some elementary training or undergraduate study in a science to understand what is wrong with the images.
comment in response to
post
You are mixing up a few concepts here (I assume you don't have a scientific background at this point, so that's okay!)
The cells sit in a sludge that is hardened through light. The cells themselves just float around until light hardens sludge in a pattern. The technique doesn't pattern cells.
comment in response to
post
Depends on the compensation and benefits of the specific program in my opinion. If you don't pay close to a normal wage, the PhD candidate is a student and should have the freedoms of student. Only when proper compensation is given can you expect a PhD candidate to act like staff.
comment in response to
post
Exactly, science is done everywhere, not only in academia. Train people for where they will thrive.
comment in response to
post
Do people actually look at comments on ArXiv? I like the new update. Hopefully, the added visibility will encourage people to comment.
comment in response to
post
If structure over several 100 um was giving somewhat repeatable patterns, then it could be explained by flow patterns during printing.
Here we see repeats of the exact placement of cells with precision well below 10 um (limited by resolution photo). Not possible with an current technique.
comment in response to
post
A) How high end does a lab have to be for you to be immune to criticism?
B) What do you mean by microfluidics that can produce similar shapes? Are we looking at the same pictures? These are not similarities due to fabrication of the device or the periodicity of flow.
comment in response to
post
We haven't seen the beginning of this. I think Trump will get bored of talking about the NIH leaving the rest of his cabinet to do as they please.
comment in response to
post
This seems like the only reason to do this. Create leverage to get RFK jr and others through. Transition team had months to come up with specific measures if they actually wanted to change something about NIH spending.
comment in response to
post
Pure evil. Hoping Dr. Fauci can find protection in some other way. Surely, local law enforcement has to step up as he is an obvious target of violence.
comment in response to
post
“...the systematic retraining and re-incentivizing around things that will support reproducible research hasn’t happened and it won’t happen until there’s more coordinated action amongst different stakeholders in the research ecosystem.”
How will @nature.com contribute to solving this issue?
comment in response to
post
"If you were engaged in related research, you would know that this data is already irrelevant, and we don't need to falsify it on this issue. That would be too foolish."
Hahahahaha I love how blatantly this is written with ChatGPT. What an argument.
comment in response to
post
The list is endless...
comment in response to
post
Without a doubt
comment in response to
post
With the state of certain journals, and the incentives being pretty bad globally, I think we should see an overall increase in retraction rates. That is ofc just my hypothesis.
comment in response to
post
The link and photo don't point to the same article right?
I think the article linked is a bit lacking. Instead of just assuming that certain countries have worse oversight and public pressure, I would like to see more analysis on policy versus retraction rate.
comment in response to
post
You literally admitted to not reading the paper properly to begin with. You did get answers to your questions. You were given the source of all the data and how it was processed. You are just too lazy to do it yourself and seek excuses.
comment in response to
post
Can't imagine she sends tens of social media replies shifting the goal post every time Brett.
comment in response to
post
She told you how she got the data. You can do the analysis yourself now right? It's all from OA so the raw data is at your disposal.
comment in response to
post
This whole thing is so bonkers I can't believe it's real. Good of the Swedish National Board to actually try to tackle this thoroughly.
I wonder though what the sanctions will be if any?
comment in response to
post
The main thing I like about it: chronological feed. Just give me the posts of the people I follow.
It just needs to get a little bigger/more popular.
comment in response to
post
Love the draft sketches ;) Fascinating topic
comment in response to
post
Again, you have to read what people type before replying. My initial response is stating that Elisabeth Bik making a website where people can help her out is not an easy task. I have not moved away from my intial response at all.
I am ending my discussion with you.
comment in response to
post
Maybe, instead of typing in a frenzy, you could actually read the posts you are replying to.
The original posts talks about expanding the capacity of specific experts to review dodgy papers. If you want to use Pubpeer, just use it.
comment in response to
post
Ironically, your unhinged replies are an example of why it would be a bad idea for sleuths to attach their name to a large platform.
Everyone cares about whiteblowing laws, since you are bound by law and anonymity in academia barely exists.
comment in response to
post
I keep seeing economists do this... Why?
comment in response to
post
I am well aware of whistleblowing. As you are always bound by the law, I would also advise you to look up the specific legal definition(s) of whistleblowing.
The vast majority of PubPeer comments or even specific controversies are not covered by whistleblowing policy or law.
comment in response to
post
The answer to people facing frivolous lawsuits is not to open them up to more lawsuits, especially potentially viable ones.
As the original post was asking about how to further increase capacity of a specific expert, it would be unwise to affiliate with a large scale anonymous free for all.
comment in response to
post
There is a reason all media platforms have moderation teams.
Setting up these platforms is not easy because there are people who take it one step too far. No one is arguing you can't ask questions.
I recommend you look further into the work of some sleuths and the challenges they have faced.
comment in response to
post
PubPeer heavily moderates posts precisely because of lawsuits. I think people need to realise that it's very easy to cause damages or defamation by accident.
Journalists are trained to back-up facts properly and use the correct language.
comment in response to
post
Might need to find a team as many suggested. It's hard work but surely there are people willing to help out.
Potentially will have to focus on more high-impact stories? Although that is of course hard to do as well.
comment in response to
post
Might be quite hard to do. Potential claims of fraud can trigger lawsuits. I feel like this is work that requires a lot of care from each contributor.
comment in response to
post
It was a pleasure working together! Happy holidays!
comment in response to
post
Not the easiest topic, but definitely a discussion worth to have
comment in response to
post
Would be very cool! Thank you for the offer