LаngLаngС

general recent conversations

Discussion on question by Anixx: Is t…

Imported from a comment discussion on history.stackexchange.co...

LаngLаngС

Apr 22 18:20

@MarkJohnson Yo. This angle of 'what' is 'democratic', & in that situation, in (what's 'normal' for) 'Weimar' esp is what I feel missing in existing As. Were Ebert, Scheidemann, Müller, Marx, or Brüning 'coming to power democratically'? Can you answer this while addressing these seemingly inherent biases from evaluating different democracies (and their 'canons') and apply both those biases & an internal analysis for Weimar constitutional & dynamics peculiarities? I guess before/after Brüning is the minimum required?

LаngLаngС

Apr 22 18:20

Could clarify and quote the relevant texts for what you mean with " These numbers did not allow the Nazis to form a cabinet according the constitution"?

deutschsprachiger Raum

General discussion for german.stackexchange.com. You may speak...

LаngLаngС

Oct 29, 2022 09:57

Ferner scheint mir die Tendenz 'schnelle Antwort erfolgt in den meisten Fällen auf absolut unzureichend recherchierten Fragen' nicht eben in die abnehmende Richtung zu gehen.

LаngLаngС

Oct 29, 2022 09:55

@userunknown Das scheint mir ein Schwachpunkt über mehrere SEs zu sein: 'prevent closure by posting (any) answers'? Egal, ob sowohl Frage oder Antworten Qualität zu Tische bringen. 'Schnelle Antworten' scheinen viel zu oft ein eigenes Problem zu sein, da dann ja sogar noch die möglichen, wünschenswertem, oder sogar dringenden Änderungen an der Frage aktiv verhindert werden (invalidate answers by edits).

LаngLаngС

Oct 27, 2022 12:19

@userunknown Vielleicht sollte auch die Frage gestellt werden, wieviel 'own prior research' von Fragestellern verlangt werden kann; und soll; und vereinzelt auch: muss? Es fällt mir schwer zu imaginieren, dass zu dieser Frage eine einzige Suchabfrage vor dem Posten durchgeführt wurde. Bei einigen Antworten allerdings ebenso.

Hub of Reason

General discussion about skeptics.stackexchange.com

LаngLаngС

Oct 28, 2022 04:46

OK Any further edits for ~5hrs-> please………

LаngLаngС

Oct 28, 2022 04:45

@oddthinkinhg Isn't that interesting? Ignorants & Know-nothings: shaping HNQ with zest & perpetuity?

LаngLаngС

Oct 28, 2022 04:33

IS SKEPTICS:SE nothing mere than FULLFUCXKED.COMOR SIMILAR? ARE WE COMPLACENT TO MIMIKAMA, FULLFACT, BBC? ARD, CNN, RTV?

LаngLаngС

Oct 28, 2022 04:31

THAT''S THE LINE OF WATER VS FIRM GROUND. For SE purposis, I'd say: timw to speak up?

LаngLаngС

Oct 28, 2022 04:28

Skepticism/AMP?

LаngLаngС

Oct 28, 2022 04:27

@odd: (I'll leave it there): Where's the border line/dividing line?

LаngLаngС

Oct 28, 2022 04:24

Giving anything in terms of ammunition to these bastards of the description: "national-vaccionists' for their sickest agenda setting regarding lies of efficacy or effectivenst: and naturalism: OddyliySkeptics:SE will prolly never know?

LаngLаngС

Oct 28, 2022 04:24

JUST if it is it wasn't clear enough: current trajectory FOR THIS SITE is "fact checker confirmed: Covid-19-unvaxxjinsaated will kill all contribiuterrx?

LаngLаngС

Oct 27, 2022 20:35

@imsop

> Doctors turn to antibiotics after sex in fight against syphilis surge
Caitlin Gilbert, Jamie Smyth

Facing an alarming surge of syphilis cases a group of US doctors recently deployed an experimental strategy: asking high-risk patients to take a single pill of a common antibiotic after unprotected sex to try to prevent infection.

San Francisco has become the first US public health authority to issue formal guidance recommending the strategy following the release of two studies showing doxycycline can slash transmission rates for the potentially life-threatening disease.

LаngLаngС

Oct 27, 2022 19:52

Anyway. Read the (by now you read this probably deleted) comments unfolding on this one. It appears as if most users here are happy to read 'fact-checker material'? In terms of scope, content, direction, style, thinking-mode, methods or better: methodology, philosophy, and quality? Emphasising ignorance and belittling thoroughness? Going to to the sources is actively frowned upon, but cargo-cult-refs are golden shower material?

LаngLаngС

Oct 27, 2022 19:43

@Oddthinking You wrote 'ping me'…—but you aren't even pingable anymore in this room?

LаngLаngС

Oct 27, 2022 19:42

We see commentators, answer writers jumping at whatever is presented to them. No follow-up on that?

LаngLаngС

Oct 27, 2022 19:41

This is going downhill all the way.

LаngLаngС

Oct 27, 2022 19:40

Before asserting whether any claim is true/false, a Skeptics:SE answer must read the claim in its original context and evaluate that?

LаngLаngС

Oct 27, 2022 19:39

When nobody reads the original article, and answer writers even insist on just running with it 'as-presented', how can a question/claim be really treated comprehensively?

LаngLаngС

Oct 27, 2022 19:37

Q: Is gonorrhea "on the brink of becoming untreatable"?

In this article of the Financial Times about a "sexual health crisis" in the US, the following claim is made: The study showed doxycycline was less effective for preventing gonorrhoea, which is on the brink of becoming untreatable and can increase a patient’s risk of contracting HIV. The contex...

LаngLаngС

Oct 27, 2022 19:37

Another one to go on record:

LаngLаngС

Oct 21, 2022 06:23

Since WP is very notable but not very reliable, I guess a quite good rule of thumb is: questions using WP tend to be very good, answers using WP as the main (gasp: sole) argument/reference source are very bad?

LаngLаngС

Oct 21, 2022 06:21

@JoeW How is WP non-notable? Do you mean reliable? If it's not a vandalism snippet, gone after 24h, on a WP page, but a durable claim/assertion they let stay even without [citation needed] or cargo-cult ref (and also with them…), etc, then it is always 'notable'?

LаngLаngС

Oct 21, 2022 06:18

@DialFrost Without further info: WP is imo 'the 1st go-to source' for anyone & everyone. So by default this would be notable? WP has a terrifying reach and sometimes likewise quality…

LаngLаngС

Oct 7, 2022 10:59

But perhaps you understand now that 'fact-checking' is by now a shot-down-in-flames & a burned-to-the-ground word and concept. Answers that rely on those are not needed on a site like this. If this site doesn't strive to be better —much better— than those evil 'fact-checkers', then it has zero purpose on its own, but is a metastasising malignincy. Same for: Testimonials & 'expert'- opinions. These are diametrically opposed to the site's stated mission.

LаngLаngС

Oct 7, 2022 10:53

You may now say that 'technically, this is a fine answer'. Coz. It has 'references, it's what skeptics crave'. Let's go Brawndo!

LаngLаngС

Oct 7, 2022 10:50

We read in effect: 'claimant is false because he says things 100% compatible with what those fuctcheckers also spat out?' And: 'claimant himself is wrong, because his heritage looks iffy' (not the claim).

LаngLаngС

Oct 7, 2022 10:48

Nobody 'checks' any sources anymore?

LаngLаngС

Oct 7, 2022 10:47

"People do not get enough omega6!"

LаngLаngС

Oct 7, 2022 10:47

What do we actually hear on that keto podcast?

LаngLаngС

Oct 7, 2022 10:47

Aha.

LаngLаngС

Oct 7, 2022 10:47

'Therefore: that keto claim is not with evidence'.

LаngLаngС

Oct 7, 2022 10:46

That Insider article (and the epigonal answer here) says 'fear over too much ω6 is overhyped'.

LаngLаngС

Oct 7, 2022 10:45

It is absolutely guaranteed that not a single listener to the advertised podcast can be convinced by what is written here on Echochamberofthemob:SE.

LаngLаngС

Oct 7, 2022 09:04

This echo chamber problem really gets worse. Answering hearsay with equally bad hearsay distorting and conflating its own sources? That cannot be the way. And yet the (non-HNQ!) votes seem to indicate that this it what we like?

LаngLаngС

Oct 7, 2022 09:02

That makes the answer here an oblique to the problem counterclaim based on a very superficial and unproductive 'fact-checking' article mixed up with barely connected ad hominem and some spicy opinionated commentary (which doesn't build a bridge out of a swamp but leads further into the woods). In short: echo chamber construction and amplifier for a poorly written article.

LаngLаngС

Oct 7, 2022 08:59

That makes the question asked hear an analysis of hearsay on TikTok.

LаngLаngС

Oct 7, 2022 08:59

Further: the studies this 'research' bases its conclusions on do not support the claimed reach in that review!

HNQ History

Tracking Hot Network Questions history.stackexchange.com and c...

LаngLаngС

Oct 27, 2022 11:15

Just a stat: of all our questions in 2022 up to October, 18% of them went HNQ, that is: should be listed here.

LаngLаngС

Oct 27, 2022 09:59

Please monitor MetaSE, this room, and how this unlucky situation unfolds.

LаngLаngС

Oct 27, 2022 09:58

A: Mobile app infrastructure being decommissioned

Will the end-point https://stackexchange.com/hot-questions-for-mobile also be shutdown? I ask because I run a service on Glitch to feed hot questions into several Chat rooms around the network. See How can I add Hot Network Questions (HNQ) to a chat room feed? for its features. Currently its data...

LаngLаngС

Oct 27, 2022 09:58

Meta alert:

The Time Machine

General discussion for history.stackexchange.com. For urgent i...

LаngLаngС

Oct 22, 2022 13:31

Make that a SWATHE above?

LаngLаngС

Oct 22, 2022 13:29

@T.E.D. Possible. I just wondered whether our standard formulations for handling such situations might draw us into a too narrow focus area? 'Helping with a homework type Qs' is different from 'doing the homework'? Have a hunch that we suppress the helping part when IDing anything as SEWHAT (standard essay writing/homework assignment type), and tend to forget in the process that some of those might fit well after edits?

LаngLаngС

Oct 22, 2022 13:20

@TheHistorian If we vote 2 times 'up' on this now, HNQ will likely explode on us? (Whether that is a good thing? At least it's not WW2, but still connected to 'war'…)

LаngLаngС

Oct 21, 2022 06:16

@TheHistorian If this isn't a homework assignment? — We seem to lack a more detailed meta post on this problem?

LаngLаngС

Oct 14, 2022 10:20

LаngLаngС

Oct 8, 2022 13:09

@TheHistorian The comments below this one (incl my own) are perhaps confusing for any asker? What I miss and don't know how to really address is: what's the advice for the poster to improve this really sufficiently to get this re-opened? Really none?

LаngLаngС

Oct 7, 2022 23:56

The wonders of HNQ… Some users seem to really like the site_s_ and do participate regualrly, but do not want registration, despite them obviously establishing a 'known user name' and other stuff. Now, I've seen some users (even here) having continued difficulties with maintaining logins etc. B ut what is going on with this one?