> Do you want issues of Nature and cell to be replication studies? As a reader even from within the field, im not interested in browsing through negative studies.
Actually, yes, I do. The marginal cost for publishing a study online at this point is essentially nil.
I think archives with pretty low standards for notability are a good idea. At some point though you have to pick what actually counts as interesting enough to go in the curated list that is actually suggested reading, where the prestige is attached. If there's no curation by Nature then it falls to bloggers or another journal to sift through the fire-hose and make best-of lists. Most of the value is in the curation, not the publishing. Without exclusivity there's very little signal.
> The marginal cost for publishing a study online at this point is essentially nil.
The marginal cost for doing a study remains the same, which is quite a bit. Society doesn't have unlimited scientific talent or hours. Every year someone spends replicating is a year lost to creating something new and valuable.
Langstrasse is as close to a red-light district as you'll find in Zurich.
It's gotten a lot better over the last couple of years, but stating that you were offered drugs there is like being offended that you walked past a casino in Vegas.
Contrarian here. I've fell in love with Firefox's AI Chatbox sidebar. It's extremely helpful to have Gemini immediately available to help with translating and summarizing text.
Eventually and it was massively controversial within academia. There were studies that showed it worked, but studies are positivist and for many education academics, positivist is an insult. That's why it took literally generations and a political war to soak into academia at large after the science was uncontroversial.
> Construction in the USA is driven by capitalism. From my own observations, a big part of why we build less in recent times is the real estate market crash in 2008. We're still feeling the effects.
An efficient market would see an increase in supply to meet demand. This is exactly what happened in Minneapolis, Raleigh, and many cities in Texas, which made it comparatively earlier to get construction permits (in some cases, particularly for multi-family housing).
> We have too much space relative to our population
If you're arguing that there's an abundance of space, this is true in many countries (and was certainly true prior to the Federal-Aid Highway Act or Levittown).
> We have too much space relative to our population and our cultural focus on individualism mean that people will always prefer single family homes
Why? There are plenty of locales in the US where this very much isn't the case.
> Those cant exist without cars and people with cars need to be able to commute.
If we're simply talking about the average daily commute for the average person, why? There are still plenty of cities in the US that have effective public transportation.
MB provided a cash infusion during the GFC in exchange for 10% of Tesla. Both companies saw it as a strategic partnership.
Tesla planned on sticking to luxury vehicles and selling electric power trains to companies, like MB, that would handle everything else. MB, as far as I’m aware, thought that Tesla would prioritize this more than they did.
Tesla helped develop the MB B 250e, MB’s first BEV. At the same time, they developed and launched the Model S, which was far more expensive but a complete game changer.
Who knows what happened between this and when MB sold their stake in Tesla, but it’s easy to imagine that both companies became less enthusiastic about their partnership over time.
Actually, yes, I do. The marginal cost for publishing a study online at this point is essentially nil.
reply