202000+ entries in 0.105s
Framedragger: to remark in jest,
this makes my own work more easier because i can dismiss any cs papers relevant
to $work if
they deal with data but do not also publish data. "not science, boss!1"
mircea_popescu: Framedragger what stretch ? i did an "early publication" of my research! was worth jack shit
to you!
Framedragger: well
the latter, of course, but how you can stretch
this example i'm not sure...
mircea_popescu: will you mark it as "alf key craked" or "alf key maybe vulnerable, gotta read
this
tomorrow" ?
mircea_popescu: besides, you operate on
the same exact paradigm, except when you deliberately
turn off your brain and any sense of decency
to participate with
the empire of idiots. witness : if i now say "hey guise, i found way
to crack asciilifeform 's key, will publish
tomorow"
mircea_popescu: the most practical
thing is
to write junklets about how potent and sexy obama is all day.
Framedragger: it's just
too extreme, i believe, and *impractical* (i wonder, did feynman publish raw data?)
mircea_popescu: that we look down at people with "lower" standards ?
that we deem "lower" == "absent" ?
Framedragger: i
take issue with disqualifying *everything* which does not also publish raw data,
though.
Framedragger: look, i agree with
this attitude;
the ssh banners, etc etc are and will remain publicly available.
these are *important* standards
to have.
mircea_popescu: because it's
the only fucking stance because what
the everloving fuck.
mircea_popescu: Framedragger
this great stance happens
to have been held for many years, sucyh as for instance when in 2010 diana_coman didn't sleep a weekend
to liberate
the ro min of edu's data.
diana_coman: and
the fact
that
there is a lot of null published doesn't make it less null
Framedragger: that's a great stance of course, but i do believe
that
this disqualifies all but, i don't know,
to speculate, "30" publications SINCE
THE BEGINNING OF
TIME
☟︎ mircea_popescu: all publications which do not publish
the data are newspaper articles.
Framedragger: mircea_popescu:
then all of
the publications which do not publish raw data are null?
mircea_popescu: Framedragger
this is a ridiculous stance. not published = not existing
Framedragger: asciilifeform: how little of
the data is public is indeed *shameful*, and in
that regard, phuctor should be lauded for making all data available.
mircea_popescu: where's
the pre-phuctor phuctor ? can i has links ? something ?
Framedragger: diana_coman: you are forgetting
the detail where phuctor wasn't
the first
to do what it did.
mircea_popescu: you can claim all you want, but what's it
to do with anything. for all you know i'm drunk. what's
that change.
diana_coman: Framedragger,
the issue is
that it is RELEVANT
mircea_popescu: in what sense first (actually) biggest (actually) project
to factor rsa is "not
that important" ? who did something more important in
the interval and what was it ?
Framedragger: mircea_popescu: not emotional; in fact i will go further and claim
that *your* evaluation stems from a bit of butthurt (which is human, of course.)
diana_coman: it's like saying "oh,
that guy is not 'important' hence his findings can be stolen"?
mircea_popescu: Framedragger is
this evaluation based on something outside or just emotional ?
diana_coman: Framedragger, understand:
this is not about "importance"
diana_coman: very little bullshit allowed
to stand quickly expands until
there is (nor can
there be) anything else
than bullshit
Framedragger: diana_coman: i don't believe
that phuctor is *that* important, yes.
mircea_popescu: Framedragger so it doesn't fail it in your book. what of it. i brought a whore
to my grandma's dinner once, it didn't disqualify her in my book.
that's what books are for.
diana_coman: " will even perhaps address
this point." <- omfg
mircea_popescu: and yes people
take umbrage with very little bullshit, which is not unreasonable, because a) very little bullshit is never alone (we know
this, because unlike
the dicklets involved, we HAvE EXPERIENCE in
the fucking field) and b) it doesn't
take much
to
throw everything off, bullshit compounds while
truth decays.
Framedragger: mircea_popescu: i am quite content with
their bibliography section.
they did not include phuctor (but included
the other studies before and after phuctor), and
that is a failure on
their part.
they can be informed and will even perhaps address
this point.
that does not fail *the whole paper* in my books, however.
diana_coman: Framedragger,
the underlying issue from my point of view is
that intellectual dishonesty essentially bars one from claiming
to do research;
they might be doing advertising, writing, experiments or anything else, but not research since
they are not after finding
things out as
they are, but about finding something
to eat or whatever
mircea_popescu: it exists in nothing and in no way outside of
this.
this is all it is. raping your students is not relevant
mircea_popescu: this chaining of knowledge, for your info, is
the CORE of academia.
☟︎ Framedragger: mircea_popescu: i see what you mean. do you
think
this "it
then necessarily follows" is
truly "necessarily"? what do others
think? i do see what you mean,
tho.
mircea_popescu: did
they live up
to what
they swore
to do, in your evaluation ?
mircea_popescu: this is usually included by
the shorthand string "bibliography"
☟︎ Framedragger: they *did acknowledge
the first study* (2012 - before phuctor.)
mircea_popescu: Framedragger so if it does not make
that statement, it imports, like any research paper EVER,
the following "the authors have conducted a full review of extant literature relevant
to
their
topic, and swear
that
the following list is complete and correct :"
☟︎ Framedragger: asciilifeform: i don't see how
this is enabling. by
that metric, *everything* is enabling. someone used phuctor
to hack into box, phuctor enabled
them?
Framedragger: mircea_popescu: no; and in fact
they did carry out experiments, in
the sense of data being gathered (including new data - about
the state of onion DHT.)
Framedragger: asciilifeform: yes
that part is despicable, sure.
mircea_popescu: Framedragger alright. does
this paper make
the statement "we conducted no research of extant art, because [we're
too cool for
that ; princeton forked off reality ; whatever]" ?
diana_coman: first and foremost I
take issue with pretending
that an unaknowledged repackaging of other people's work mostly pretends
to be research
Framedragger: mircea_popescu: *any* pointers
to
the methodology; *any* untrue or glossy parts; *any* stretching in
the conclusion sectoin.
Framedragger: "#trilema dislikes a random irrelevant paper for not having mentioned phuctor;
the rest of
the discussion is about how academia used
to be better."
diana_coman: Framedragger,
the alphabetic ordering of names is inconsequential;
that was just chuckles really
Framedragger: diana_coman: do you
take issue with any *particular* points, or just
the "alphabetic ordering of names oh no"?
mircea_popescu: diana_coman yeah, recall all
the hissy fits about "oh
this prof
translated work, EVIL!11"
diana_coman: it used
to be at least
translating useful stuff
mircea_popescu: the only problem with
this is
that it's essentially fraudulent : princeton goes about
to old people pretending it's a college, but in reality it's a diploma mill like any other. EXACTLY in
the vein of how argentina goes about europe pretending it's a country an'
trying
to borrow money, when irl it's less of a country
than my model
train set.
diana_coman: a bit like "it's not plagiarising since
this is what academia is now"
diana_coman: mircea_popescu, I suppose
that's pretty much
the
thing here: by now
this is
the "best" one can see from
that area
Framedragger: i mean, a large part of
the paper is exposition. rsa, dht (relevant
to how onion services work), etc.; so, it's not *interesting*. but it's not in any particular way shitty. i wouldn't have read it otherwise and certainly do not see it as very valuable.
Framedragger: btw
the "which onion services
targeted by
those malicious relays" part of
the paper is quite nice (from initial glance).
mircea_popescu: which is
the best possible construction i can put on Framedragger 's notions. "hey,
this is what college MEANS NOW. sorry."
mircea_popescu: now, i can see
the merit in an argument along
the lines of "what
the fuck do you want mp, research ? how
the fuck is
that going
to happen if you insist on sticking all
the cowpokes indoors ?
they'll do what
they can, nod along with
the rest of
the "academia".
diana_coman: esp for
those in
the know of academia-on-the-topic-of-author-order it screams desperate hunger
diana_coman: on a side note,
the only
truly lulzy part in
there is
the footnote on page 1 "All four authors contributed substantially and share first authorship.
The names are ordered alphabetically"
mircea_popescu: what a difference a decade makes
to academic standards i swear.
Framedragger: diana_coman: i haven't read
the method section yet but so far so good.
mircea_popescu: no,
this is where we waste cycles.
too much productivity is bad for management.
Framedragger: wasn't a rhetorical question. but i certainly do not wish
to waste
tmsr's cpu cycles, so no need
to answer, either
diana_coman: Framedragger, does
that paper seem
to you like an honest piece of research work in any shape?
mircea_popescu: Framedragger no you didn't see it because i had a discussion over coffee before
taking
the pics with a girl, so
this matters now.
diana_coman: Framedragger, fwiw
there really is no meaningful way
to defend
that paper
mircea_popescu: mp's genuine original
theatre. doing
things
that are useful and interesting. give me
tax money nao!
mircea_popescu: (there was also some work done with blackface in 1715, but
that was in france.
that's it
though, since 1715!)
mircea_popescu: also, i invented blackface last week. want
to see
the first best greatest blackface performance in history of world ?
mircea_popescu: look,
there's people with all sorts of strange beliefs. i'm not in
the business of forcing ideological compatibility. you can live with it, more power
to you.
Framedragger: (i certainly do not have any intention
to
troll.)
mircea_popescu: fucking ridiculous question. "what did soviet nuclear programme
take from allies ? IT IS ALL BASIC SCIENCE!!
THERES NAPKINS WITH FARTS DRAWN ON
THEM SINCE 1933!111!!"
Framedragger: there is no cognitive dissonance in my mind. i know
those peeps personally and also simultaneously do not observe any plagiarism.
they used
things from
those 2012 and 2016 projects.
mircea_popescu: Framedragger you've not any standing
to ask, so i guess you mayn't ask.