Brian Weatherson
@bweatherson.bsky.social
Philosopher at University of Michigan. https://brian.weatherson.org/
I think the one round means you have to get rid of major revisions. Otherwise this happens way too often
Round 1 reviews: Major revisions - good idea but needs *lots* of work.
R2 reviews: Minor revisions - lots of improvement but still here's a dealbreaker.
What do you do with those R2 reviews?
Round 1 reviews: Major revisions - good idea but needs *lots* of work.
R2 reviews: Minor revisions - lots of improvement but still here's a dealbreaker.
What do you do with those R2 reviews?
November 10, 2025 at 5:42 PM
I think the one round means you have to get rid of major revisions. Otherwise this happens way too often
Round 1 reviews: Major revisions - good idea but needs *lots* of work.
R2 reviews: Minor revisions - lots of improvement but still here's a dealbreaker.
What do you do with those R2 reviews?
Round 1 reviews: Major revisions - good idea but needs *lots* of work.
R2 reviews: Minor revisions - lots of improvement but still here's a dealbreaker.
What do you do with those R2 reviews?
If I was better with R one question I'd be getting from the data is what ultimately happened with the major revisions.
Outside of Phil Review, I thought they had a pretty high publication rate at most journals, though often after several torturous rounds.
Outside of Phil Review, I thought they had a pretty high publication rate at most journals, though often after several torturous rounds.
November 10, 2025 at 4:57 PM
If I was better with R one question I'd be getting from the data is what ultimately happened with the major revisions.
Outside of Phil Review, I thought they had a pretty high publication rate at most journals, though often after several torturous rounds.
Outside of Phil Review, I thought they had a pretty high publication rate at most journals, though often after several torturous rounds.
On this model you might expect capital owners who are powerful but not maximally so, and threatened by even larger capital owners, to be a bit more willing to take some risks to decarbonize.
And I think that's what we do see, e.g., younger Elon Musk, or Andrew Forrest.
And I think that's what we do see, e.g., younger Elon Musk, or Andrew Forrest.
November 10, 2025 at 4:55 PM
On this model you might expect capital owners who are powerful but not maximally so, and threatened by even larger capital owners, to be a bit more willing to take some risks to decarbonize.
And I think that's what we do see, e.g., younger Elon Musk, or Andrew Forrest.
And I think that's what we do see, e.g., younger Elon Musk, or Andrew Forrest.
Some people are doing some level of this, though mostly to select winners from longlists, so you still need rec letters for determining who gets on longlists.
blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsoci...
blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsoci...
How randomisation has changed the British Academy’s approach to research funding - Impact of Social Sciences
As more research funders adopt randomisation, the British Academy explains why it has used partial randomisation to allocate its Small Research Grants scheme.
blogs.lse.ac.uk
November 9, 2025 at 9:21 PM
Some people are doing some level of this, though mostly to select winners from longlists, so you still need rec letters for determining who gets on longlists.
blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsoci...
blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsoci...
It's only a short term fix though. A submission generated by a modern LLM with the web search features turned up to maximum should generate an objection letter in 15 minutes that's at most going to have the errors a careful human might make.
November 9, 2025 at 6:57 PM
It's only a short term fix though. A submission generated by a modern LLM with the web search features turned up to maximum should generate an objection letter in 15 minutes that's at most going to have the errors a careful human might make.
Yeah, carelessness with respect to whether it is deceptive should be strong enough, especially if paired with a clear statement that cutting-and-pasting from a chatbot is careless.
November 9, 2025 at 6:57 PM
Yeah, carelessness with respect to whether it is deceptive should be strong enough, especially if paired with a clear statement that cutting-and-pasting from a chatbot is careless.
Reposted by Brian Weatherson
FWIW my textbook of choice has been for all x Calgary paired with Carnap.io.
I’m super appreciative of the work that the Open Logic Project people have been doing! openlogicproject.org
I’m super appreciative of the work that the Open Logic Project people have been doing! openlogicproject.org
Welcome To Carnap!
Carnap.io
November 8, 2025 at 7:13 PM
FWIW my textbook of choice has been for all x Calgary paired with Carnap.io.
I’m super appreciative of the work that the Open Logic Project people have been doing! openlogicproject.org
I’m super appreciative of the work that the Open Logic Project people have been doing! openlogicproject.org
He ran to unseat her last time and lost by 30 points. Shouldn't the focus be on people who have a chance to win?
November 6, 2025 at 8:38 PM
He ran to unseat her last time and lost by 30 points. Shouldn't the focus be on people who have a chance to win?
Yep. A lot of these theories of how to win seem to forget that the other side gets to move.
E.g., If you think the other side is winning on X, so you downplay X, all that happens is that you stay losing on X, and the other side floods the airwaves with ads about X just before the election.
E.g., If you think the other side is winning on X, so you downplay X, all that happens is that you stay losing on X, and the other side floods the airwaves with ads about X just before the election.
November 6, 2025 at 4:25 PM
Yep. A lot of these theories of how to win seem to forget that the other side gets to move.
E.g., If you think the other side is winning on X, so you downplay X, all that happens is that you stay losing on X, and the other side floods the airwaves with ads about X just before the election.
E.g., If you think the other side is winning on X, so you downplay X, all that happens is that you stay losing on X, and the other side floods the airwaves with ads about X just before the election.
Reposted by Brian Weatherson
AltNPS's post is full of the same lurid details and breathless dramatization as their previous attempt at ICE raid erotica from a few weeks ago.
Things that AltNPS could not possibly have witnessed, and which aren't reported anywhere else.
Things that AltNPS could not possibly have witnessed, and which aren't reported anywhere else.
November 6, 2025 at 3:27 PM
AltNPS's post is full of the same lurid details and breathless dramatization as their previous attempt at ICE raid erotica from a few weeks ago.
Things that AltNPS could not possibly have witnessed, and which aren't reported anywhere else.
Things that AltNPS could not possibly have witnessed, and which aren't reported anywhere else.