fossilesque@mander.xyzdeleted by creator to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 1 year agoResourcesmander.xyzimagemessage-square261linkfedilinkarrow-up1884arrow-down147
arrow-up1837arrow-down1imageResourcesmander.xyzfossilesque@mander.xyzdeleted by creator to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square261linkfedilink
minus-squareBodyBySisyphus [he/him]@hexbear.netdeleted by creatorlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up14·1 year agoMaybe you should read the paper and find out.
minus-squarebrianary@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3arrow-down7·1 year agoWhy? I’m not the one using it to justify an argument.
minus-squareBodyBySisyphus [he/him]@hexbear.netdeleted by creatorlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up14·1 year agoBecause it would be a more efficient way to understand their actual methodology than posting random guesses on a comment thread?
minus-squarebrianary@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down4·1 year agoIt’s not my job to make your point. You don’t get free labor.
minus-squareBodyBySisyphus [he/him]@hexbear.netdeleted by creatorlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6·1 year agoIt’s not my job to read papers for you. You don’t get free labor
minus-squarebrianary@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down3·1 year agoSo you didn’t read it either? Interesting.
minus-squareBodyBySisyphus [he/him]@hexbear.netdeleted by creatorlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·1 year agoNope, guess you’re going to have to read it yourself to find out if they’re assuming instant, frictionless transport of goods.
minus-squarebrianary@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down2·1 year agoIf it’s not compelling enough for you to read it to support your position, why would I read it?
minus-squareBodyBySisyphus [he/him]@hexbear.netdeleted by creatorlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·1 year agoMy position was that you might actually learn something if you read the article, but I think you’ve provided sufficient evidence that I was wrong.
Maybe you should read the paper and find out.
Why? I’m not the one using it to justify an argument.
Because it would be a more efficient way to understand their actual methodology than posting random guesses on a comment thread?
It’s not my job to make your point. You don’t get free labor.
It’s not my job to read papers for you. You don’t get free labor
So you didn’t read it either? Interesting.
Nope, guess you’re going to have to read it yourself to find out if they’re assuming instant, frictionless transport of goods.
If it’s not compelling enough for you to read it to support your position, why would I read it?
My position was that you might actually learn something if you read the article, but I think you’ve provided sufficient evidence that I was wrong.