fossilesque@mander.xyz to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 1 year agoResourcesmander.xyzimagemessage-square249fedilinkarrow-up1879
arrow-up1879imageResourcesmander.xyzfossilesque@mander.xyz to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square249fedilink
minus-squareBodyBySisyphus [he/him]@hexbear.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up13·1 year agoMaybe you should read the paper and find out.
minus-squarebrianary@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·edit-21 year agoWhy? I’m not the one using it to justify an argument.
minus-squareBodyBySisyphus [he/him]@hexbear.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up13·1 year agoBecause it would be a more efficient way to understand their actual methodology than posting random guesses on a comment thread?
minus-squarebrianary@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 year agoIt’s not my job to make your point. You don’t get free labor.
minus-squareBodyBySisyphus [he/him]@hexbear.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6·1 year agoIt’s not my job to read papers for you. You don’t get free labor
minus-squarebrianary@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 year agoSo you didn’t read it either? Interesting.
minus-squareBodyBySisyphus [he/him]@hexbear.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·1 year agoNope, guess you’re going to have to read it yourself to find out if they’re assuming instant, frictionless transport of goods.
minus-squarebrianary@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 year agoIf it’s not compelling enough for you to read it to support your position, why would I read it?
minus-squareBodyBySisyphus [he/him]@hexbear.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·1 year agoMy position was that you might actually learn something if you read the article, but I think you’ve provided sufficient evidence that I was wrong.
Maybe you should read the paper and find out.
Why? I’m not the one using it to justify an argument.
Because it would be a more efficient way to understand their actual methodology than posting random guesses on a comment thread?
It’s not my job to make your point. You don’t get free labor.
It’s not my job to read papers for you. You don’t get free labor
So you didn’t read it either? Interesting.
Nope, guess you’re going to have to read it yourself to find out if they’re assuming instant, frictionless transport of goods.
If it’s not compelling enough for you to read it to support your position, why would I read it?
My position was that you might actually learn something if you read the article, but I think you’ve provided sufficient evidence that I was wrong.