Eelongate

> i suspect most financial fraud would be caught by the accountants and grant administrators at respective institutions.

If it was only their money on the line, that would probably suffice. But when researchers (and by extension the institutions they work at) are receiving government grants, I think there need to be independent audits.

> "i don't know what you'd find in a financial audit that a scientific audit wouldn't tell you"

Financial audits would uncover financial fraud.

> "seems like a better deal to audit the results, no?"

Better to audit both.

It won't change until a track record of producing studies that fail to replicate hurts the career of an academic more than not publishing anything at all. As long as publish-or-perish provides a stronger incentive than the negative repercussions of publishing nonsense, this will continue.

This sort of lame duplicitous apologia is little but more of the same rhetoric that got the Bay Area into this predicament in the first place. Here is my summary of the article "Sure it's bad, but actually it's not really all that bad. It's not media hysteria, but actually the media that blowing this out of proportion and you're all caring about the wrong thing. Yes it's bad for upscale shops to be robbed, but actually it's not really that bad and you're probably just a rich yuppie for caring. The police can't stop mob burglaries because the mobs are too violent, but also the mobs are just dumb kids and you shouldn't be worried about it."

He's pretending to give a shit but each time that's just a setup for him to downplay the issue and scold you for not caring about other things instead.

> Ironically, though, the larger Firefox's market share, the more Google will pay to be the default search engine in Firefox.

The smaller Firefox's market share, the more Mitchell Baker gets paid.

So, useful adblockers that actually work well won't be allowed.

Does Brave have their own extension repository yet, or are they still leaving that all up to Google? I don't see much value in Brave supporting a feature dropped from Chrome if it only has Chrome extensions and they all drop support for it anyway.

> But this is motivated by stereometric reasons – everything on the same latitude is equally distorted

Expanding on this; Mercator is useful for navigation because it's conformal, i.e. it preserves angles. When you're plotting the course of a ship, this is very convenient.

> Many maps -especially US maps- enlarged USSR for decades.

Can you provide information or citations for this?

> China says "X must be visible at zoom level Y instead of at Y-5".

That's not the claim made in the thread above: "Sometime in 2014 or early 2015, China’s State Bureau of Surveying and Mapping told members of the Apple Maps team to make the Diaoyu Islands, the objects of a long-running territorial dispute between China and Japan, appear large even when users zoomed out from them." Can you provide any citation to the contrary?

> If I remember correctly, this used to happen on historical maps too, the UK and Europe were often made larger than they actually are.

A consequence of the projection chosen, applied uniformly (e.g. Mercator, which also makes Greenland and Alaska ludicrously large)? Or do you mean maps that enlarged Europe specifically? Mercator is dumb (for anything other than navigation), but there is a significant difference here. China is doing the latter.

All of that is completely irrelevant to my point, which is that fiduciary duty does not compel Apple to do business with China. You were peddling a falsehood.

1897... copyright holders have really done a number on you.

How does an app developer test 911 functionality without actually placing a 911 call? I'm sure 911 operators would not be amused by such test calls; do companies have special testing cell networks that don't connect 911 calls through?

You take me for what, a libertarian? Do you think you know me? I never said anything about wanting a "free market cake."

Regardless, nothing you said refutes me. "Fiduciary responsibility" does not legally compel Apple to do business in China. If anything, such misconceptions about fiduciary duty are espoused by libertarians online, not rebuked by them.