Lets not lie by omission, they are wildly more expensive while being shit too. 🙂

I really like Obsidian for campaign notes and stuff while running ttrpgs. I’m sure the uses are possible to recreate in other ways, but it makes it simple and easy enough for me to actually use it.

It seems like there is more to it, but even if it was just open source Obsidian, that’s a valid enough reason to exist in my mind.

You’re bring a lot of energy that suggest to me this is a particular bone you have to pick. I agree econ can be a science. Sadly this meme doesn’t dive into the sociological foundations that validate the possibility of a hypothetical world where econ is done properly and can become a science along side other social sciences; choosing instead to just critique the absurdity of economics as it is currently exists.

I guess economics is just a more robust field of science than biochem, pharmacology, clinical medicine, materials science, and psych, because that’s totally what the data means.

I think there are other issues with the paper that make me hesitant to take it’s conclusions at face value.

I feel like this is incredibly misleading to clip out of the abstract when just above it we have:

If the hierarchy hypothesis is correct, then researchers in “softer” sciences should have fewer constraints to their conscious and unconscious biases, and therefore report more positive outcomes. Results confirmed the predictions at all levels considered: discipline, domain and methodology broadly defined. Controlling for observed differences between pure and applied disciplines, and between papers testing one or several hypotheses, the odds of reporting a positive result were around 5 times higher among papers in the disciplines of Psychology and Psychiatry and Economics and Business compared to Space Science, 2.3 times higher in the domain of social sciences compared to the physical sciences, and 3.4 times higher in studies applying behavioural and social methodologies on people compared to physical and chemical studies on non-biological material. In all comparisons, biological studies had intermediate values. These results suggest that the nature of hypotheses tested and the logical and methodological rigour employed to test them vary systematically across disciplines and fields, depending on the complexity of the subject matter and possibly other factors (e.g., a field’s level of historical and/or intellectual development). On the other hand,

To clip the quote just after the statement “on the other hand” to give the definitive conclusion of the paper is pretty wack. Like the paper is literally titled “Positive” Results Increase Down the Hierarchy of the Sciences

Further I think this meme isn’t about the fact that it’s literally impossible to do economics, or that there is nothing worth studying in markets. More that the orthodoxy and biases of economics muddy the field to the point of dishonesty, shown here as being 5 times more likely to be right when you can massage the factors compared to telescope data.

Vibes science?

Thinking that an unliked party putting forward a candidate, who’s only nominating quality is a second order connection to Obama, lost because of a triad of leftist servers on lemmy is genuinely delusional.

Oh my mistake, I didn’t mean to demean at all. Yeah I think even in your example there are baked in knowledge we’ve picked up that we don’t realize, and that a very likely response from fully fresh eyes would seeing the synopsis is “oh this isn’t for me.”

I use the neckbeard to destroy the neckbeard

Agreed! You can look elsewhere, and that’s how I, and I think many other folks, learned. The OP was talking about the manuals though, specifically mentioning /usr/bin. So to restate my point is not to say it’s impossible to learn linux, but that man pages are weird and bad place to push folks looking to learn.

Agreed, and I think a larger part of it is that most folks pick it up based on context after long enough, so it’s rarely explained. The square brackets are optional arguments. So I could use ssh 192.168.1.1 or ssh postimo@192.168.1.1 with the first asking for the account after I connect, and the second just asking for the password. You can see how the computer took it in the response you got. hostname ]192.168.1.1 being it saw the @ and assumed everything after was the hostname and included the ]

It’s worth noting that you can’t just connect to a random machine like this, they need to also be running an ssh server. But I wouldn’t expect you to know that without reading a great deal more of the documentation 🫠

This mentality suuucckkss

The idea that manuals in linux are a good way to learn and understand new software is peak linux neckbeard bs, and I will die on this hill. I congratulate OP on the exact type of autism that lets them feel this is an effective and useful method for learning new software, but if there is desire to have a greater adoption of linux maybe its bad to be snarky at folks for not instantly understand the terminal based documentation conventions of some dudes in the 70s. Maybe an alphabetical* list of all possible options is okay for referencing or searching, but is objectively insane way to learn or understand a problem.

Incredible! Even more excited now!

Looks super cool, I will have to check it out!

I know it’s definitely a massive ask, but has there been any consideration on collaboration tools in the future? Even if it’s not full multi-user editing, obsidian is really lacking in it’s ability to share with others, and those might be a huge add.

That would be rad, but isn’t TOR glacial? And VPNs are sketch if you’re not paying for them. What is i2p like, and does it have access to the open web or is it more a siloed space?

You see, inflation is not in fact up, because if you replace your steak dinners with ground beef, you will be spending just as much as before!

I didn’t 🥺

Super cool that we build a system that is only held accountable months later through courts that were taken over.

Very cool! It seemed like the sort of thing that would only be possible with google levels of data.