BLUE
KS
Kelly Sovacool
@kelly-sovacool.bsky.social
Bioinformatics Software Engineer. PhD from Schloss Lab at UMich. sovacool.dev 🏃🏻‍♀️🚴🏻‍♀️🧗🏻‍♀️ she/her
208 followers320 following50 posts
Reposted by Kelly Sovacool
SPseparkinson.bsky.social

Of note: The Belmont Report, which guides US-based human subjects research, emphasizes the ethical principles of respect for persons, beneficence, & justice. Justice is literally central to the ethical pursuit of human-subjects based science. Scientific research is *supposed* to benefit humanity.

Screenshot of a skeet by Tom Nichols, a columnist for the Atlantic, noting how he had been unaware that Scientific American's mission statement "includes the goal of furthering social justice" before writing an Atlantic article complaining about Scientific American's endorsement of Kamala Harris.
3
Reposted by Kelly Sovacool
DSdsamorod.bsky.social
Reposted by Kelly Sovacool
MHmichaelhobbes.bsky.social

These people are so bizarre to me. Nichols ostensibly agrees that Trump is a threat to science and democracy, but then he dedicates an entire column to discrediting an institution standing up for these values. Is everyone supposed to just think that Trump is bad but not say anything?

Vote for Kamala Harris to Support Science, Health and the Environment
Vote for Kamala Harris to Support Science, Health and the Environment

Kamala Harris has plans to improve health, boost the economy and mitigate climate change. Donald Trump has threats and a dangerous record

33
Reposted by Kelly Sovacool
MHmichaelhobbes.bsky.social

60% of this magazine's output now is just variations on "To be fair, the premise of my article is false..." www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/...

59
Reposted by Kelly Sovacool
EFcriminalerin.bsky.social

When I say this is Hitler level shit I am fully aware of what I am saying and am saying it very mindfully and deliberately www.reddit.com/r/Trumpvirus...

From the Trump virus subreddit which has the video at the link in this post: 

Trump claims about illegal Haitians: "I'm angry about young American girls being raped and sodomized and murdered by savage criminal aliens"
85
Reposted by Kelly Sovacool
DBdeevybee.bsky.social

rapid reaction blogpost here: deevybee.blogspot.com/2024/09/prod...

2
Reposted by Kelly Sovacool
Smehr.nz

this is pretty amazing: @lucinauddin.bsky.socialwww.lieffcabraser.com/antitrust/ac... summary of the case:

The Publisher Defendants’ Scheme has three primary components. First, the Publisher Defendants agreed to not compensate scholars for their labor, in particular not to pay for their peer review services (the “Unpaid Peer Review Rule”). In other words, the Publisher Defendants agreed to fix the price of peer review services at zero. The Publisher Defendants also agreed to coerce scholars into providing their labor for nothing by expressly linking their unpaid labor with their ability to get their manuscripts published in the Publisher Defendants’ journals. In the “publish or perish” world of academia, the Publisher Defendants essentially agreed to hold the careers of scholars hostage so that the Publisher Defendants could force them to provide their valuable labor for free.
Second, the Publisher Defendants agreed not to compete with each other for manuscripts by requiring scholars to submit their manuscripts to only one journal at a time (the “Single Submission Rule”). The Single Submission Rule substantially reduces competition among the Publisher Defendants, substantially decreasing incentives to review manuscripts promptly and publish meritorious research quickly. The Single Submission Rule also robs scholars of negotiating leverage they otherwise would have had if more than one journal offered to publish their manuscripts. Thus, the Publisher Defendants know that if they offer to publish a manuscript, the submitting scholar has no viable alternative and the Publisher Defendant can then dictate the terms of publication.
Third, the Publisher Defendants agreed to prohibit scholars from freely sharing the scientific advancements described in submitted manuscripts while those manuscripts are under peer review, a process that often takes over a year (the “Gag Rule”). From the moment scholars submit manuscripts for publication, the Publisher Defendants behave as though the scientific advancements set forth in the manuscripts are their property, to be shared only if the Publisher Defendants grant permission. Moreover, when the Publisher Defendants select manuscripts for publication, the Publisher Defendants will often require scholars to sign away all intellectual property rights, in exchange for nothing. The manuscripts then become the actual property of the Publisher Defendants, and the Publisher Defendants charge the maximum the market will bear for access to that scientific knowledge.
11
Reposted by Kelly Sovacool
TUtedunderwood.me

A very short blog post reflecting on an experience I've had several times lately: where students show up with a fully-formed solution to a problem I thought was still too difficult for them. #machinelearning#AI

Will AI make us overconfident?
Will AI make us overconfident?

Like the internet or a magical sidekick, chatbots are reorganizing knowledge to be more interactive and more accessible.

13
KSkelly-sovacool.bsky.social

OH: "I don't usually go for political yard signs, but I would totally put a Kama-llama in my yard if they made one"

0
KSkelly-sovacool.bsky.social

if it matters whether the response an LLM gives you is correct, and you don't know enough to verify the correctness or fix any mistakes, you should not be using an LLM for that problem...

1
KS
Kelly Sovacool
@kelly-sovacool.bsky.social
Bioinformatics Software Engineer. PhD from Schloss Lab at UMich. sovacool.dev 🏃🏻‍♀️🚴🏻‍♀️🧗🏻‍♀️ she/her
208 followers320 following50 posts