Can't remember all the details, but remember wondering why you would come up with a weird way to do choice assays, fail to get the expected control result, do the experiment anyway, and then be like "that shit didn't replicate."

Commentary on multiple papers, but here is the most recent from the Vidal-Gadea group. elifesciences.org/articles/107...

We're very familiar with Sonder here...lots of cheerleading over the years even as proliferation of short-term rentals in residential neighborhoods devastated the downtown housing market (including for our own students).

Most ways in which Montreal is better than Toronto are because Toronto Incorporated the suburbs and Montreal didn't. (The others are because of arrondissement mayors willing to experiment.)

The numbers on the map are cases per 100,000 people. So it's the numbers on your table divided by approximate population of each province x 100,000.

Fundamentally, what we need is leadership. But we break with the chorus of most #OpenScience initiatives here and emphasize very strongly that this leadership must come from funders and institutions.

We researchers can support the battle, but we cannot lead the charge. Funders hold the cards.

6/n

For-profit journals are supposed to improve research quality, yet they're perversely incentivized to churn out whatever they can monetize. This was happening before AI (see Strain: bit.ly/43gJPUM), and AI will make it worse.

It's insane that we volunteer our time to help them do so.

4/n

Scientists operate on principles of good faith. But this is just ridiculous. If you, dear reader, take nothing else away from The Drain paper, it is that publishers cannot be invited to the table any longer.

They can participate and carve a space, but they can't be part of shaping policy.

3/n

Scandalous that this is happening at a time of high quality satellite monitoring @mark-carney.bsky.social @stand.earth

I'm glad they got others to flesh in the details of me saying "it's dumb bullshit."