Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.763 [SLACK_000977] · slack_pm:msg:07987

Recipients on this medium are inferred from channel membership, not per-message addressing.

Good plan The only way through this in the long term is getting more data. I'm doing my best on that front. Focus on the science. The rest is noise.

In context

A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.

2021-05-07 17:02 Kristian G. Andersen open

True. Might also just be better to leave it - it's shockingly hateful. I'm wondering if I should ping Jesse to warn him about this article since his Science commentary will be mixed upwith Wade's article AND Jesse may well not read the Wade piece in detail and not realize what it actually says.
2021-05-07 17:14 Edward C. Holmes open

No, Jesse has made his own bed - let him lie in it
2021-05-07 17:17 Edward C. Holmes open

My advice is to do nothing: just focus on doing the best science you can Jesse is old enough to look after himself
2021-05-07 17:19 Kristian G. Andersen open

Yeah, fair points. And yeah - I'll let this one lie (although I will talk to Jon next week, although not about the Wade piece specifically)
2021-05-07 17:23 Edward C. Holmes

Good plan The only way through this in the long term is getting more data. I'm doing my best on that front. Focus on the science. The rest is noise.
2021-05-07 17:27 Kristian G. Andersen open

Couldn't agree more. It's really shocking to see a former NYT journalist write something this hateful though - with completely flawed'science' thrown in. Plenty of scientists are sharing this article - I'm wondering if they're realizing exactly what hewrote...Oh well. Time for beer.