Na sowas. Dass ich mal so einen vernünftigen Kommentar auf tagesschau.de lesen darf...

Guilt by association is no joke! Even friendship can be dangerous! Better to avoid any human contact to not draw suspicion.

And which reviewer or publishers verifies how "significant" a contribution is beyond seeing some initials matched with tags like "visualization" or "experimental design"? That's right, nobody. It's not even remotely traceable who did what if you're a reviewer.

Academia is full of fraud and people trying to secure their share of credit because in academia it's all about names, as the twitter exchange above illustrates so profoundly. And the other driver for the sad state of academia is of course having the quantity of published papers as the most important criterion for academic success. The more papers, the more citations, the bigger your name will become. It determines your chances of getting funding and therefore your career. If you want to make a career in science you have little options but to comply with this system.

Ich finds witzig. Aber die runterwählis zeigen dass das hier eine bierernste Angelegenheit ist hahaha.

G R O N D

Sehe ich auch so. Offiziell wird mehr Verantwortung übernehmen, aka eine Führungsposition übernehmen mit mehr Geld entlohnt. Welche Verantwortlichkeiten man hat ist vertraglich geregelt. Das heißt ja nicht, dass man nie einen Finger mehr rühren sollte als vereinbart, aber im großen und ganzen soll das Gehalt ja in Zusammenhang zur Verantwortung stehen (wobei es zwischen Branchen natürlich viele, ungerechte Unterschiede gibt).

So und ich verdiene auch lieber weniger und trage dann aber auch bewusst weniger Verantwortung. Ist ja nicht meine Firma...

Amazing how you have the patience to address frustrated people like that. I guess this surely is the way but encountering these baseless yet absolute accusations just makes me angry haha.

Klingt für mich fast nach einem Versuch des öffentlichen Dienstes, moderner zu werden. Da würde das genau so laufen hahaha.

Humans have a history of violence as well as altruism. And with an increasing degree of societal complexity, humans also have a consistent record of violence reduction. See e.g. "The better angels of our nature" (Pinker, 2011).

Painting humans as intrinsically violent is not backed by evidence.

Und diese Art von Freund-feind denken ist die scheiße die den Ausbruch eines neuen Weltkriegs begünstigt. Europa sollte sich lieber auf eine multipolare Welt einstellen in der es ein eigenes Machtzentrum bildet und nicht notwendigerweise Teil des "Westens" bleiben. Kooperation und nicht-Kooperation mit dem Rest der Welt kann man dann differenzierter handhaben.

Dass China einfach der neue autoritäre Hegemon anstelle der USA wird ist unwahrscheinlich. Wahrscheinlicher ist, dass sich die USA selbst in den autoritären Hegemon verwandeln, was riesige Gefahren birgt. Es ist besser, wenn "wir" bis dahin aus dem Rektum der Amis ausziehen.

There may be parallels but there are also such huge differences that I cant really buy into that comparison. Most of all before WW2 no one had nuclear weapons. It's a difference that can't be underestimated. You may think that Putin is a lunatic but you can be sure that above all he cares about his own survival. So why should he do anything that could provoke a 3rd world war? The moment that there's an open war with NATO... He knows that he's a dead man.

Moreover, Russia is in no position to fight against let alone occupy any NATO country. They couldn't even occupy half of Ukraine so far and they've lost so many troops. Yes they're trying to build a war economy but Russia has no population that's expendable. They're already in a deep demographic crisis and this war will only cripple their economic outlook for a long time to come.

I really don't see how Russia is supposed to pull of the Hitler playbook. Putin would risk everything without a prospect of success. They'll keep fighting in Ukraine and continue their hybrid FUD war but that's all there is.

Wrong. EU countries have given over 50 billion $ support so far. Germany alone has given roughly 28 billion. There's only a handful states that are in opposition against it, including lighthouses of democracy like Hungary...

35% der Sachsen die zur Wahl gehen. 2019 waren das ca 66%. Auch wenn es diesmal etwas mehr sein sollten, ist es doch ein wesentlicher Unterschied.

Rock and stone brother

They probably have their identities tied to meat consumption. That's also a reason for the climate denialism. I recently learned about petro-masculinity and it seems very plausible to me.

The problem is not that one has to communicate the significance of research. However since the people with money don't understand the science, they can easily be mislead. And there are also big trends when it comes to funding so you can participate in the buzzword olympics to secure your funding. And this is where you leave the path of just communicating your research and its potential honestly.

The second point where this Nobel prize winner is very right is that it's all about networking, all about names. I don't know why we can't just publish research under a pseudonym, a number would suffice. This would make publishing and reviewing less susceptible to bias.

Lol, sounds totally unbiased to me...

After all, why wouldn't you believe in unbiased reports from a channel named "neutrality studies"?

We should abolish humour. It's too dangerous.

Und er hat uns einen Panzer nach Berlin gebracht :)

Liebe das Dolan Profilbild :D