Will it be recorded somewehere?

What is your process like when reading very technical books like this? Do you take notes or read it like a novel?

Is it that a database is a glorified spreadsheet or that a spreadsheet is a glorified database?

I propose this format

I am not claiming that Sabine wanted to frame her video as such. But it can be done in this way, and in a time where science is becoming more politicized, someone will create this framing for it.
End of 🧵

What Sabine crucially left out is essentially the self correcting nature of the scientific process. The framing of the video essentially becomes "The scientific community knowingly wastes taxpayer money, deceives the public, everybody inside knows and nobody speaks up." 🧵

However, when speaking to the general public, filling in information which laymen may not know is important. In this example, it would be important to mention that the transfer of information is not instantaneous, and thus relativity theory is not broken. 🧵

The issue is the missing contextualization of the presented information. To give an example closer to my field of knowledge, I could make the truthful statement: "Instantaneous change of a quantum state is possible via quantum teleportation"
This is not a false statement. 🧵

Of course, criticism does in fact happen within the HEP community. Even as a layman, I was able to find multiple papers of the sort, for example arXiv:2001.00101
To be clear, Sabine never says this is not the case, but the omission of mentioning this is devastating. 🧵

In the video, Sabine presents this email as proof of the HEP community knowingly deceiving the public. The framing (knowingly or by accident) implies a consensus in the community to deceive the public 🧵

I will say that the idea of someone essentially sending a confession to a colleague they barely know in the hopes of stopping them from criticizing the field seems off to me. Despite that, lets assume the email is authentic and truthful for the remainder of the 🧵

First I want to point out that the authenticity of the email is questionable at best. Of course Sabine (rightfully) will not disclose the identity of the researcher, from the information she shared with us even she herself cannot verify the email address really belongs to that person. 🧵

With these kinds of claims I always wonder why the interviewers tend to barely challenge them. Like what calculations did you do to base your claims in? Where did you publish your results?

That future seems veeeery distant

Well now i am really curious about the section Nonquotable Quotes