Got the numbers on that?

One who knows they're way less likely to get stabbed if the person isn't freaking the fuck out because 3 angry cops are pointing guns at them?

The message, apparently : keep Ukraine, whatever, but nothing else!

Yeah, real powerful message.

Gonna need some actual numbers on that or else who can say.

Theyre probably not worth the damage, long term.

I sure am! You know how many lives are ruined by being thrown up on the "suspect" wall? No one cares that they didn't do it, all that matters is that their photo was in the news with the words "probably did a crime??" Underneath

Stfu, Elon

Millions and millions of people, many of which found twitter to be the only way they could find work. So uh, don't be such a dick about it?

Oh piss off

Honestly I would genuinely love to hear it

Oh wow, cool, now do the list of War crimes we haven't convicted their perpetrators for.

Also, oh look, I can use Wikipedia too https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Protection_Act

Yeah, I got real honest, good intentions from the Hague Invasion Act, definitely definitely not a thing we signed instead of joining the international criminal court, conveniently right after 9/11?

Exactly, see? They're all fucked up

Why, is it relevant to their question at all?

Why would any country try their own soldiers for war crimes? That's not a Russian problem you just described

So it's the "Site of the Norfolk Southern East Palestine Derailment"

Didn't it, though?

She's dead, Jim.

News headlines cannot cater to the lowest common conspiracy theorist.

Hmm interesting. Do you think if maybe say, this professor was a professor living in iran it would matter where he lived? So by saying he is in the US, they are saying "currently not living under the regime"

Uh, okay? This is a public forum, so that's kind of a weird take.

Dude tried playing the snickers defense "oh I was just tired so I said something completely out of character".

I'm allowed to take notice of how bad a take that is.

No, its informing where the person is.

Then don't try it.

True. But even if the paper isn't published the timestamp of the hypothesis is there

https://www.cos.io/initiatives/prereg

Pre register your paper! Calling your shot in science, so hot right now.

Seriously, millions and millions of dollars are wasted every year on repeated dead ends. Your paper showing hoe the thing you did didn't work? It is just as valuable. Sharing your mistakes is incredibly brave, and incredibly important. Every scientist that comes after you is able to reach further because you showed them where not to stray from the path.

Isn't it like, 1 in 3?

For the folks in the back: just because your experiment hasn't been replicated does not disprove your hypothesis. It might not even mean anything negative for your paper. There's lot of reasons why this can happen.

What matters at the end of the day is you can find multiple studies that show with hard data that your hypothesis carries weight. These days, that doesn't really even need to mean they show "statistical significance", just that the data as a whole all lends weight to the same idea. Lots of studies can even be found hard to replicate because they are pinholed into showing these statistical values that often don't truly represent the data as a whole.

As u/magic1623 is basically saying: failure to replicate comes from loads and loads of reasons, but not from falsified data, really. That's an entirely different problem that anyone reading the paper, or trying to recreate it, would quickly see bad maths, padded sig figs, generous rounding, truly faked stuff just to get the result you want.

There's nothing inherently nefarious about a paper you can't replicate, and there's not even inherently anything wrong with that paper. But if it's noticed that you just straight up lied to show what you needed the paper to show, that's a huge fucking issue.

Okay, and that's probably true and sucks, but a "scientist" doesn't just become "Jim" when he takes the lab coat off. Which, is already me really really narrowcasting scientists, but thats just more to my point