/SCI/ META THREAD

File: e1.jpg (101KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 640x1136px

Posting more "/sci/"-related content.

>>9032527
Academia threads should be banned. Take that circlejerking and shitposting to /b/

>>9032530
Cute bait kiddo. 90% of posts on this site are academia-related. If all of those posts were removed and their posters banned, /sci/ would only be consciousness threads, race threads, and IQ threads.

File: e4.jpg (108KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 640x1136px

Something isn't science/math related if you just put "in math" at the end of the post.

"How do I get into a good grad school?
for math."

>>9032527
I also agree, anon.

This or just make an academia board or something and group /lit/ and /sci/ together

>>9032532
>board is for science and math
>hurr let's talk about things that aren't science and math because I'm to retarded to talk about science and math

Besides the slower the board, the better the quality. Now neck yourself brainlet

>>9032527
>but it seems to be an unspoken rule that most of the time (emphasis on most), posts related to academia are excused.
Can brainlets not even read the sticky?

>Reminder: /sci/ is for discussing topics pertaining to science and mathematics, not for helping you with your homework or helping you figure out your career path.

>If you want advice regarding college/university or your career path, go to /adv/ - Advice.

>>9032538
>Can brainlets not even read the sticky?

Can you understand what unspoken rule means?

>>9032535
>genuinely interesting post on /sci/ regarding thoughtful topic
>2 replies
>404

>lel, race and iq are linked
>6 gorillion replies
>pinned
>archived
>screencapped

I really don't know what you're talking about anon, as most "good" threads are diluted in the abundance of ACADEMIA-related posts (my point).

I want what you want.

>>9032541
Why would there be an unspoken rule that academia threads are allowed when there's a spoken rule that they're not allowed?

>>9032543
Also bans are inconsistent because mods aren't on 24/7 and because people report some threads more than others, not because some threads that are against the rules are allowed and other threads breaking the same rule aren't allowed

>>9032538
Please read the post.

>>9032534
Thank you. I really can't comprehend how everyone doesn't see this.

>>9032543
because it's not an enforced rule, have you never heard of an unspoken rule in real life? Like some road where the limit is 50 but cops only arrest at 80?

>>9032548
>because it's not an enforced rule
Then why did OP get banned?

>>9032546
>Please read the post.
Which post?

>This or just make an academia board
>>>/adv/

>>9032543
How long have you been using this site?

>>9032545
These threads are on the front page 24/7, that's not a very good excuse. Go look now, and tomorrow morning, look again. It's a moot point.

>>9032551
I think he meant the op

>>9032550
Inconsistency as a result of an unspoken rule, as stated

>>9032552
>How long have you been using this site?
11 years

>>9032552
>These threads are on the front page 24/7, that's not a very good excuse. Go look now, and tomorrow morning, look again. It's a moot point.
It's a perfectly reasonable explanation considering some get banned and some don't. If moderation was more consistent and more people reported off-topic threads like academia ones they would all get deleted. If there was no moderation at all none would get banned.

>>9032542
Oh so you're either baiting or genuinely have a learning disability. Reread your post, you're literally saying to encourage slow, on topic and interesting threads by spamming off topic threads that are just shitposting and circle jerking despite the fact that they will kill the good threads

>>9032555
>I think he meant the op
I did, that's what I replied to

>>9032557
>Inconsistency as a result of an unspoken rule, as stated
But the rule against academia threads is written down clearly in the sticky, why do you call it an unspoken rule?

>>9032550
>Then why did OP get banned?

Most of the time they aren't banned. Also I'm surprised they banned op and didn't just delete the thread

>>9032559
Even if I did accept your latter point, I would implore you to ask /sci/ users how often they report academia-related threads.

I think you know what I'm getting at. Academia-related threads are part and parcel of /sci/.

>>9032564
Fine, so we agree that something needs to be done. Thank you anon.

>>9032566
>But the rule against academia threads is written down clearly in the sticky, why do you call it an unspoken rule?

Please use the catalog and look for yourself. Try and create an academia related post. You won't get banned.

Then, try and post a "traps are not gay" thread. You will get banned.

>>9032557
Go through your logic there.

>I got banned for posting about academia
>can we make a rule that academia threads are allowed since it's an unspoken rule
>ok I get that they are expressly banned, but it's not enforced
Rinse and repeat

>>9032567
>Most of the time they aren't banned. Also I'm surprised they banned op and didn't just delete the thread
Because this is a slow board where threads almost certainly don't get as many reports as somewhere like /pol/ or /b/ or /v/ or /r9k/ etc.

>>9032570
>I would implore you to ask /sci/ users how often they report academia-related threads.
I report all of them, I assume I'm not the only one.

>I think you know what I'm getting at. Academia-related threads are part and parcel of /sci/.
So are race and IQ threads, homework threads, flat earth threads, etc. Doesn't mean any of them are math or science related.

>>9032574
>Please use the catalog and look for yourself. Try and create an academia related post. You won't get banned.
As I've already said, inconsistent moderation.

And OP already got banned for one, so how is this supposed to be an argument?

>>9032576
>Because this is a slow board
/sci/ is far from a slow board. surely you must browse retard infested fast boards to think that.

>>9032581
>/sci/ is far from a slow board. surely you must browse retard infested fast boards to think that.
Do you have any idea how little sense this makes? Now I'm not surprised that you can't even read the sticky

>>9032527
I agree.

An overwhelming majority of science and math research occurs in the context of academia. And the majority of quality, non-popsci, non-/pol/-tier posts come from serious academics.

>>9032576
>Because this is a slow board where...
Make a post on any one of the topics mentioned in your post

> I report all of them
I can only assume you're in the minority by the amount of non-/sci/ threads we BOTH agree with seeing

> So are race and IQ threads...
It's a broken anon. I proposed we fix it. An easy solution is allowing those posts, creating a new board, etc. Thus the reason for this meta thread

>>9032583
>And the majority of quality, non-popsci, non-/pol/-tier posts come from serious academics.
They also come from people who presumably eat food every day, that doesn't mean that food threads should be allowed.

>>9032584
>Make a post on any one of the topics mentioned in your post
For the tenth time: inconsistent moderation

>I can only assume you're in the minority by the amount of non-/sci/ threads we BOTH agree with seeing
Yes, relatively fewer people report threads on /sci/ than on other boards because there's less people here than on other boards, this much should be clear

>It's a broken anon. I proposed we fix it. An easy solution is allowing those posts, creating a new board, etc. Thus the reason for this meta thread
There's already a board, as the sticky says, /adv/

>>9032582
>Do you have any idea how little sense this makes?

I can understand that you have difficulty understanding that I am right.

>>9032577
>OP already got banned, therefore it works

Please don't post if you're not willing to contribute to the conversation. If you're going to do that, you can go to a flat-earth board.

>>9032588
>They also come from people who presumably eat food every day, that doesn't mean that food threads should be allowed.
False equivalency

Academia quite literally exists for the express purpose of collaboration on research

>>9032588
>They also come from people who presumably eat food every day, that doesn't mean that food threads should be allowed

what the fuck are you smoking?

>>9032589
There are 62 posters on a thread posted a day ago elsewhere on /sci/. /sci/ is not a slow board (not speaking comparatively). If you're an oldfag as you claim, you can't be so naive as to think making any thread on race/IQ will get you at least 80+ posters within a day.

>>9032588
>there's less people here than on other boards


no there isn't.

>>9032599
>/sci/ is not a slow board

this is what I said, retard. Go back and read

>>9032589
>I can understand that you have difficulty understanding that I am right.
/sci/ is nowhere near as fast as the other boards, /lit/ and /adv/ were introduced the same day as /sci/ and even those have more posts

>>9032591
>Please don't post if you're not willing to contribute to the conversation. If you're going to do that, you can go to a flat-earth board.
What part confuses you? There's a rule, enough people reported a thread for breaking the rule, thread gets deleted.

>>9032596
>Academia quite literally exists for the express purpose of collaboration on research
And food literally exists so that researchers can be alive to do research. What's your point?

>>9032597
>what the fuck are you smoking?
Logic.

>>9032600
>>no there isn't.
So why are there less posts here than on /lit/ or /adv/, two boards introduced the same day as /sci/?

>>9032588
>lurks on /sci/ for a month
>posts on meta

>>9032606
>lurks on /sci/ for a month
see
>>9032559

>>9032605
Okay, I'll go slow for you.

> /sci/ is nowhere near as fast as the other boards

This does not mean that it's not visited often and by a decent amount of people. That's like saying "Usain Bolt isn't fast because a cheetah runs faster". Logic, huh? Apply it.

> There's a rule, enough people ...

NO ONE reports those threads because most of them STAY UP.

Not even addressing your third retort because you're just embarrassing yourself.

> Logic

K

> so why are there less posts

Literally not an argument. See the beginning of my post

>>9032605
holly shit you're stupid.

/lit/ and /adv/ aren't the only boards on this website, stop trying to railroad the argument to board history.

>what the fuck are you smoking?
>Logic

please do smoke logic.

>with the fucking food again

stop.

>>9032607
You really don't seem like you've been on this board for a long time by what you've been saying.

>>9032611
>This does not mean that it's not visited often and by a decent amount of people. That's like saying "Usain Bolt isn't fast because a cheetah runs faster". Logic, huh? Apply it.
Does me adding the word "relatively" in front of fast make things clear for you? If any board has threads getting more reports, that shows up with more priority for the janitors/mods.

>NO ONE reports those threads because most of them STAY UP.
Threads don't get deleted just by having a lot of reports, they get deleted by having a lot of reports and a janitor/mod being online.

>>9032617
>/lit/ and /adv/ aren't the only boards on this website, stop trying to railroad the argument to board history.
When did I say they were?

>>9032619
>You really don't seem like you've been on this board for a long time by what you've been saying.
I've been here long enough to read the sticky, and for the threads I make to not get deleted for breaking rules.

>>9032605
>And food literally exists so that researchers can be alive to do research. What's your point?
No, food also supports the other 9 billion people on the planet who don't do research.

This isn't hard.

>>9032628
>No, food also supports the other 9 billion people on the planet who don't do research.
And academia is also for teaching. What's your point?

>>9032621
The points fundamental to your arguments are flawed and shitty. I can't understand how you can't see it.

> rule is in the sticky argument

Unspoken rule excuses many non-related threads. Anons are dissuaded from breaking the rules by their chances of getting caught, not their punishment. If academia-related threads are allowed on /sci/, maybe more reports/attention would be given to those threads which REALLY don't belong on /sci/.

> inconsistent mods

So why waste their time on posts that, when academia-related, are for the most part relevant to what this board is about (math and science)?

File: question.jpg (80KB, 520x750px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 520x750px

I agree with the op but
>>9032534
>group /lit/ and /sci/ together

would be amazing. It would be the ultimate intellectual board

>>9032638
>Unspoken rule excuses many non-related threads. Anons are dissuaded from breaking the rules by their chances of getting caught, not their punishment. If academia-related threads are allowed on /sci/, maybe more reports/attention would be given to those threads which REALLY don't belong on /sci/.
What part of
>Reminder: /sci/ is for discussing topics pertaining to science and mathematics, not for helping you with your homework or helping you figure out your career path.
>If you want advice regarding college/university or your career path, go to /adv/ - Advice.
leaves ambiguity that academia threads really don't belong on /sci/?

>So why waste their time on posts that, when academia-related, are for the most part relevant to what this board is about (math and science)?
Because it's not the expressed purpose of this board, same reason you don't see academia posts on mathoverflow

>>9032638
>I can't understand how you can't see it.

most of the time theses kind of people subconsciously know they're full of shit but they convince themselves they aren't. The worst kind of person.

>>9032631
>And academia is also for teaching. What's your point?
All the people who teach in academia also do research.

And a major part of what they teach is the art of research, to graduate students.

File: 3gmm54aeiscy.png (108KB, 400x381px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 400x381px

>>9032647
>All the people who teach in academia also do research.
Now I'm starting to doubt you've even set foot in a university.

File: dhalai lmao.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>>9032643
>leaves ambiguity that academia threads really don't belong on /sci/?

post an academia thread.

post an off-topic thread like "are traps gay?"

see which one gets deleted.


there you go, buddy.

>>9032650
>see which one gets deleted.
Well if you're OP, the academia one gets banned.

There you go, buddy.

>>9032651
you know damn well the academia thread won't get deleted.

>>9032649
It's funny, I was going to say the same thing about you.

>>9032656
>you know damn well the academia thread won't get deleted.
Why would I know that? OPs got deleted, and others do too:
https://warosu.org/sci/thread/S9021768
https://warosu.org/sci/thread/S9027740
https://warosu.org/sci/thread/S9015288
https://warosu.org/sci/thread/S9007528

>>9032666
>It's funny, I was going to say the same thing about you.
There's plenty of people paid only to teach and not to do research.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lecturer
> the term lecturer generally denotes an academic expert without tenure in the university, who is hired to teach on a full- or part-time basis, but who is not paid to conduct research.

Next non-argument?

File: 1446340310005.png (3MB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1080x1920px

>lets make the board even slower by catering to my tastes

huh... do you understand how that doesnt make any sense?

>i think we would all agree
obviously not if people are posting in the threads
>ctrl-f banned
>20 results
ok you're just butthurt.

do you understand if you let your feelings fade everything will be like it ever was?

>>9032680
nigga your stupid

>>9032679
and your autistic and stupid

>>9032693
so this is the type of winning content that will replace /sci/ when academic threads are banned?

ha, it's not going to happen kiddo, find another corner to play in

File: 14195241-Portrait-of-a-young-man-skeptical-Stock-Photo.jpg (113KB, 866x1300px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 866x1300px

>>9032696
>and your autistic and stupid
Very convincing rebuttal. You've changed my mind on the whole thing

>>9032679
>the term lecturer generally denotes an academic expert without tenure in the university, who is hired to teach on a full- or part-time basis, but who is not paid to conduct research.
To even become a professor, they had to complete a Ph.D., which means that they did in fact conduct original research, regardless.

Either way, so what if there's a small minority of professors that doesn't conduct actively research? 99% of food-eaters don't do research. Your analogy is still invalid, and is the very definition of a non-argument.

File: holy shit.jpg (222KB, 1331x694px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 1331x694px

>go to catalog for 4 seconds
>play a game of spot the academia-related threads

Anyone ITT who still doesn't see my point is beyond any amount of electroshock therapy.

>>9032702
>this one anon called me a name so therefore the point OP is trying to make is dumb lel

>>9032708
it's just one autistic anon that wants academia banned.

he still args because>>9032645

>>9032705
>To even become a professor, they had to complete a Ph.D., which means that they did in fact conduct original research, regardless.
Lecturers aren't professors, that's why they're called lecturers.

> 99% of food-eaters don't do research. Your analogy is still invalid, and is the very definition of a non-argument.
You realize most academics don't do scientific or mathematical research either right?

>>9032535
>science and math
>virtually every legit scientist and mathematician has been through academia

science and math are not just hobbies and interests, they are also careers.

>>9032717
>virtually every legit scientist and mathematician has been through academia
Should we talk about tying shoes since most scientists and mathematicians have walked around a lot?

>they are also careers.
Which is addressed by the sticky, career talk belongs on /adv/.

>>9032713
Just stop responding to the annoying twit. Only God can help him by the looks of it.

>>9032708
Why did you circle a thread about linguistics and a thread about cryptology? You seem to have trouble discerning on-topic from off-topic

>>9032720
not an argument

again, moot point

You're actually just proving your incessant lack of genuine critical thought and showing every anon who has the mispleasure of perusing this particular thread how lost /sci/ is knowing that the likes of you dwell within our midst.

With my deepest and most sincere pleading, I beg of thee, >>>/b/

>>9032725
didn't know linguistics was a scientific study until just this moment, and didn't read the full header of the latter. tbqh, I am rather frustrated I'm sharing this board with the likes of >>9032720

File: Capture.png (51KB, 740x539px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 740x539px

>>9032726
>not an argument
> again, moot point
> You're actually just proving your incessant lack of genuine critical thought and showing every anon who has the mispleasure of perusing this particular thread how lost /sci/ is knowing that the likes of you dwell within our midst.
> With my deepest and most sincere pleading, I beg of thee, >>>/b/
You're still stuck at the bottom, my friend.

What argument needs to be made? There's a rule against academia threads on /sci/, while you're encouraged to post them on /adv/, so what's the issue?

>>9032732
> tbqh, I am rather frustrated I'm sharing this board with the likes of >>9032720 (You)
Why?

File: _G_O_D_.jpg (14KB, 599x337px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 599x337px

>>9032733
You know what would be hilarous?

If this poster was a mod.

>>9032714
>Lecturers aren't professors, that's why they're called lecturers.
You didn't know there are professors with non-tenure, teaching-only contracts?

>You realize most academics don't do scientific or mathematical research either right?
>resorting to semantics
It should have been obvious to you that ITT we're talking specifically about science/math academia.

>>9032733
All steps of that triangle have been made against you, and your blatant illustration of the Dunning-Kruger effect still seems to convince you that you have an iota of sense spilling from your keyboard even though every single anon has addressed your points critically only to have you repeat yourself or provide a nonargument like some angry step-child.

if you want a retort, see above. You make less sense than any brainchild of Rudin, and that's saying something

>>9032742
>You didn't know there are professors with non-tenure, teaching-only contracts?
Yes, those are professors, not lecturers.

>It should have been obvious to you that ITT we're talking specifically about science/math academia.
And it should have been obvious to you that I was only talking about food eaten by scientists and mathematicians.

>>9032711
ok so you're just trolling because
>this one anon called me a name so therefore the point OP is trying to make is dumb lel
is exactly what happened to my post.

so you just want sci to be shitposting 24/7?

also >>9032708 doesnt have a single instance of "advice regarding college/university or your career path,"

ALSO

on other boards the same shit happens, /g/ gets tech support threads and desktop threads, /v/+/tv/ gets porn threads that stay up late at night, people on /tg/ arent always excellent to eachother.

the more i think about it the more retarded this whole thing sounds.

OP isnt talking about academic advice threads
OP and probably you are just butthurt about being banned
Neither of you can come up with a single good reason other than "i dont like these threads and nobody else does too so ban them"

Holy fuck im an idiot for responding

>if other people break the rules I should be able to
>legitimately thinking circlejerking about grades/school is science or math related
Just fuck off already, you attention whores and /pol/ are what's killing this board

>lol post your face and your favorite fetish and guess what other people's favorite games are XDDD
is not vidya and shouldn't be on /v/, this isn't any better

>>9032738
It wouldn't seem he cares much about the quality of /sci/, as the only thing he has yet to do is provide a solution to the OP.

>>9032743
>All steps of that triangle have been made against you, and your blatant illustration of the Dunning-Kruger effect still seems to convince you that you have an iota of sense spilling from your keyboard even though every single anon has addressed your points critically only to have you repeat yourself or provide a nonargument like some angry step-child.
Feel free to point out such a nonargument.

>>9032749
>It wouldn't seem he cares much about the quality of /sci/, as the only thing he has yet to do is provide a solution to the OP.
The solution is already in place with the sticky: math and science threads on /sci/, academic threads on /adv/.

>>9032745
academia-related threads are relevant to science/mathematics.

there's your reason

now begone thot

>>9032750
see >>9032751

>>9032754
see
>>7734126

>>9032757
>implying the majority of /sci/ agrees

pls go

>>9032527
Academia is not about dick measuring and freshman bragging about how they won the lottery.
It's about facilitating the growth and production of ideas and research. The shit people get into with politics is a side effect of humans being garbage.

>>9032748
>is not vidya

exept it is vidya related.

>>9032762
Obviously OP isn't about dick-waving. Stop trying to defeat the argument by providing examples clearly not specified by the OP

>>9032760
i cant actually believe someone is this ego-centric on a science board. you are just having a laugh right?

why would we want sci to be full of people who make up rules and think everybody who isn't responding to them agrees with them. Some kind of bizzaro sci

>>9032762
>implying IQ threads aren't dick waving

??????

>>9032760
>implying the majority of /sci/ agrees
>pls go
There's only 12 posters in this thread, so if most of /sci/ wanted academia threads they're not very vocal about it.

>>9032770
I cant actually believe someone is this ego-centric on a science board. you are just having a laugh right?

>>9032744
>And it should have been obvious to you that I was only talking about food eaten by scientists and mathematicians.
Another false equivalency. Such food is neither exclusive to, nor a defining characteristic of, scientists and mathematicians.

However, their academic societies are exclusive to scientists and mathematicians.

On their papers where they publish their discoveries in science and mathematics, immediately following their names, they invariably place the name of their academic or research institutes. Notably absent: their favorite foods, their shoelace knots, and other irrelevant trivia to which you keep drawing weak analogies.

Keep stretching. Eventually you'll loosen that knot in your skull.

>>9032777
>>9032776
LOL

>>9032765
It really isn't.
>Here's a game, talk about
Vidya
>What are some good games to play while taking a shit?
Vidya
>THIS IS POISON, SAY SOMETHING NICE TO HER -commence tranny "SFW porn" dump
Not vidya but still more board related than people not even pretending to discuss science or math.

That said /v/ mods are mostly interested in enforcing their own agendas, I've literally been banned for making a thread about an expansion for a game that just came out because "muh go to /vg/" - meanwhile there's 50 Persona waifu threads up at a time which are left untouched

>>9032527
>it seems to be an unspoken rule that most of the time (emphasis on most), posts related to academia are excused.
There's pretty wide latitude on what is allowed as long as you aren't soliciting advice. As >>9032538 says, read the fucking sticky.

Whether that rule is a good rule is another question. Boards like /diy/ and /k/ support advice threads just fine. I honestly don't know why we can't do the same.

>>9032788
Because the advice is about immediately board-relevant subjects, what's happening on /sci/ is just /soc/ and /adv/ garbage

>>9032799
It's usually school-related, since this is arguably the closest we have to an academic board. Maybe hiroshimoot should make /sch/ a thing.

>>9032788
This board doesn't allow advice threads. That was the point of OP.

>>9032799
I would leave it to you to explain how undergrad/grad studies, research pursuits, etc are not immediately relevant to the pursuit of science/mathematics, especially since most of what those threads discusses concerns the academic community itself (which is heavily invested in STEM)

>>9032845
>I would leave it to you to explain how undergrad/grad studies, research pursuits, etc are not immediately relevant to the pursuit of science/mathematics, especially since most of what those threads discusses concerns the academic community itself (which is heavily invested in STEM)
Burden of proof is on you to show that it is.
>Scientists drink water
>People drink water
>People piss
>There's porn that features piss
>Piss porn should be allowed on /sci/
You're just drawing arbitrary lines in the sand when the rules already have a clear stance

>>9032845
>I would leave it to you to explain how undergrad/grad studies, research pursuits, etc are not immediately relevant to the pursuit of science/mathematics, especially since most of what those threads discusses concerns the academic community itself (which is heavily invested in STEM)
They are immediately relevant, but that doesn't change the fact that it's against the rules. Just like they're against the rules on mathoverflow, because it gives the discussion forum more focus.

>>9032851
>implying /sci/ discussion has focus given present rules
Not a good point at all.

Even if academia-related content was allowed, do you really think the board would be any different than it is now? Anons already ignore it. The only difference would be
1. less pointless bans (wrong place at the wrong time)
2. more freedom of posting

I don't know about you, but I genuinely enjoy lurking among threads with topics such as book recommendations, class curricula, undergrad/grad advice. It's enriching and makes for some very good discussions concerning topics that obviously have a deep stake in the scientific/mathematical community.

Academia threads should be encouraged desu (I must clarify myself here that I do not mean dick-waving threads, as so many anons fail to realize)

>>9032858
>Even if academia-related content was allowed, do you really think the board would be any different than it is now?
Well the academia related threads that have been deleted wouldn't have been deleted, so yes.

>book recommendations
not really academia related

>class curricula
Depends on what you mean by this, I can't remember seeing many threads or posts that would fall primarily into this category

>undergrad/grad advice
belongs on /adv/

>>9032867
>book recommendations
For topics in math/science, and very academia related

>/adv/
I must say I'm really angry that people expect to have the same anons on /adv/ as /sci/. The reason people come here for advice on academia-related topics is because this board is primarily browsed by academics.

If you wanted advice regarding firearms, would your first instinct be to go to /k/ or /adv/?

>>9032867
Also, class curricula in STEM fields

>>9032875
>For topics in math/science, and very academia related
I mean yes, academics deal with book recommendations, but the vast majority of book recommendations don't mention any university or class along with it.

>I must say I'm really angry that people expect to have the same anons on /adv/ as /sci/.
Why do you think people expect this?

>The reason people come here for advice on academia-related topics is because this board is primarily browsed by academics.
As above, mathoverflow is primarily browsed by academics too, but you don't post about academia-related topics there either.

>Also, class curricula in STEM fields
Like I said, I don't see many posts about this

>If you wanted advice regarding firearms, would your first instinct be to go to /k/ or /adv/?
/k/. And If I wanted advice about math or science, I'd go to /sci/, and if I wanted academic advice, I'd go to /adv/.

File: lamaFace.gif (2MB, 371x331px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 371x331px

>>9032605
I would punch you in your autistic face, if I'd see you in the streets. None of your shitty posts make any sense.

>>9032891
>I would punch you in your autistic face, if I'd see you in the streets. None of your shitty posts make any sense.
Quite literally not an argument, come back when you have something of substance to post.

File: sci.png (138KB, 1310x291px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1310x291px

Did anyone even see the thread op is talking about getting banned for?

What OP got banned for was clearly a advice thread, plus it was loaded with /pol/ bullshit. Pic related

What OP posted as this threads pic is not advice related, reminder the sticky says "If you want advice regarding college/university or your career path, go to /adv/ - Advice."


What the fuck?

/adv/ for STEM academic advice is terrible "advice".

Most people on /adv/ don't study STEM and most /sci/ lurkers that could give solid advice don't go to /adv/ looking for such threads.

This rule is outdated.

File: index.jpg (6KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 300x168px

>>9032926
>the rule is outdated because I don't like it

>>9032953
No, rule is outdated because it makes no sense. That's like saying send all academic questions to /tv/. No one on /tv/ can answer PhD questions about math graduate programs, same applies to /adv/. /adv/ is about relationships, etc. not about researchers in low dimensional topology. /adv/ is the wrong demographic

>>9033013
>No, rule is outdated because it makes no sense.
Does it not make sense on mathoverflow either?

>>9033015
Your argument doesn't hold much weight.

>>9033017
>Your argument doesn't hold much weight.
Elaborate? They're two forums with boundaries for discussion topics, and both offer specific alternatives for off-topic discussion

>>9033023
You haven't made much of an argument until your last post. MO would close most soft questions like "what researchers are there in low dimensional topology" very quickly. It also isn't a place to have "discussions" the answers are one off. The comments are intended for clarifications on points from the answer, not a discussion.

/sci/ is better than /adv/ for those kinds of question because there are math graduate students here. Those set of math graduate students are not lurking /adv/. If you post a thread on /adv/ about low dimensional topology research it'll die and may not have anyone comment on it. Here you'd get comments and recommendations on graduate schools.

>>9033015
why does sci need to be like mathoverflow?

>>9033028
> MO would close most soft questions like "what researchers are there in low dimensional topology" very quickly.
Yes, they expect a high level of discourse there.

>. It also isn't a place to have "discussions" the answers are one off. The comments are intended for clarifications on points from the answer, not a discussion.
There are mathematics themed discussion rooms on stackexchange, they're just segregated from the Q&A pages.

>Those set of math graduate students are not lurking /adv/.
I don't know if this is true or not since I don't browse /adv/, but presumably if people wanted to give academic advice then they'd go to /adv/ since that's where such threads are. Which, in the case that they get no replies on /adv/, is yet another reason not to have them here.

>If you post a thread on /adv/ about low dimensional topology research it'll die and may not have anyone comment on it.
A thread about low dimensional topology research sounds fine for /sci/, I don't know why you'd post it on /adv/.

>Here you'd get comments and recommendations on graduate schools.
Now this makes it sounds more like it's a personal thread for figuring out which grad school to go to, i.e. nothing to do with topology.

Obviously these threads will show up anyway since most people don't read/care about the rules. A big issue is that /sci/ already has a hard enough time having more than a handful of good threads even while disallowing homework and academia threads. Explicitly allowing them would just flood the board with even more low quality threads.

>>9033043
>why does sci need to be like mathoverflow?
It doesn't, it was just a comparison of how forums segregate discussion about differing topics.

>>9033060
also to add this, it's easy enough to slip in a 'who are some of the top researchers in [x] field' post on /sci/ under the current rules, explicitly allowing academia threads would inevitably lead to 100000 'should i go into comp sci or engineering?' threads

>>9033093
the only academic threads that are not allowed are career path ones

not sure why people keep ignoring this

they arent going to stop

>>9032527
>I made a post a day or two ago about grad school applications and got banned
Would this by any chance be the thread about lying about your race on your grad school application because "fuck affirmative action and fuck niggers"? If so, I'll repeat what I told you in that thread: you're an entitled little dumbass and grad school will eat you alive. This board is slow so mods don't actively monitor us, which is why inoffensive threads that are mildly off topic are allowed to stay, so if you got banned you must have done something to merit it.

>>9032926
This

>>9032640
There should be a minimum amount of words you have to post with. While this would certainly result in a lot of copy-pastas it would also avoid other low effort posts
/his/ should be added as wel

>>9033334
I would actually really like that

>>9033334
The more disciplines you add, the more dick-sizing shitposting you'll see.

>>9033419
I know, it's going ti be amazing.

>>9033060
>>Here you'd get comments and recommendations on graduate schools.
if someone posted here asking for recommendations for graduate schools, then I'd imagine they're a STEM student. So I think /sci/ posters would be able to give a better insight than people on /adv/. I guess that's a bit of a grey area though, and don't necessarily disagree with you.
In the case where someone wanted advice on which subject to take as an undergrad, then I'd agree that /adv/ is far better suited.
>Explicitly allowing them would just flood the board with even more low quality threads.
do you think an academia general would work? obviously it could lend itself to being a place for low quality /pol/ and dickwaving posts, but i think most generals here work pretty well and generate pretty decent discussion

>>9033334
i'd agree if it weren't for threads like /sqt/, where an answer can be a few words and a bit of latex, and where a minimum word count would just lead to needless exposition

>>9033334
This would be pretty gr8

>>9032527
Agreed. Academia threads should be allowed, and there should be a monthly poll as to the thread topic which should be banned for the month, so we can get rid of the shitty, overdone threads like race and IQ

>>9032588
>seriously asking /adv/ for academic advice
Have you ever tried this anon?

if by chance any mods are reading this, can you explain why you deleted the /sci/ feels thread, but have left up threads such as the following:
>>9031073
>>9033240
>>9032303

>>9034550
>Have you ever tried this anon?
No, I ask professors for academic advice.

>>9034552
>can you explain why you deleted the /sci/ feels thread, but have left up threads such as the following
Probably because /sci/ feels got more reports.

>>9032915
Holy shit, OP should've been fucking permabanned for being so fucking cancerous.

>>9033913
>answer can be a few words and a bit of latex
[eqn] \LaTeX \text{ code adds to your character count. } [/eqn]
[eqn] \text{ And you can always introduce invisible padding into your } \LaTeX \text{ anyway.} %blox blox blox Lorem ipsum 5 cute facts about Maki blox blox [/eqn]
[eqn] \text{ So in practice it wouldn't be an issue at all. } [/eqn]

>>9032915
Oh, that's just a /pol/tier bait thread. Just move it to /pol/ , /b/ , or /trash/ imo

And academia threads should be allowed.

>>9032849
>the rules already have a clear stance
We're discussing whether or not the rule should be changed. Saying "the rule is clear" is not an argument here.

>>9035580
>Saying "the rule is clear" is not an argument here.
Saying "academia threads should be allowed" isn't an argument either.

>>9035489
[eqn]%but then everyone could add invisible padding. plus i had to go to the archive just to view your invisible text so thanks for that [/eqn]

the only good threads on sci are the ones with problems/riddles and shitposting about science.
Actual good discussion is too rare to be mentioned.
Cancer is: IQ, consciousness, spiritual, academia, comparing fields, all the shit that has been talked about in a million threads (global warming, sci fi things etc.)
ylyl and launch threads are ok.
Just my 2 cents.

>>9035591
[eqn]\begin{align}
\bullet & \quad \texttt{ Right click > Show Math As > TeX Commands} \\ \bullet & \quad \texttt{ Right click > Inspect element} \\ \bullet & \quad \texttt{ View page source} \end{align} % apparently you can't \itemize or \enumerate here
[/eqn]
There's no shortage of ways to view the code source, unless you're phoneposting (and even then you can still read it by going to the archive, as you've noted).

But in any case trying to read the invisible padding is missing the point, since its entire purpose is to circumvent the proposed minimum word count while presenting a post that is free of "needless exposition".

Moreover, requiring LaTeX-illiterate brainlets to put at least some effort into posting would probably go a long way towards reducing spam and raising post quality on /sci/.

>>9032527
the mods should fuck off back to rebbit and stop deleting threads that get attention, no matter how "hurr not intended" they think they are

>>9035687
>the mods should fuck off back to rebbit and stop deleting threads that get attention, no matter how "hurr not intended" they think they are
Agreed, 300 post threads about "what degree should I get?" are great for /sci/

>>9035691
>I get to decide what's good for /sci/
people post in threads they find interesting. there's no reason your special snowflake opinion should be worth more than others. this is not your secret club, and no one asked you to moderate it

the mods are too retarded to like /sci/, so they hate browsing it and moderating it

this has always been the case. sometimes I have the entire first page hidden because it's all trash that I've reported, and it stays like that for days because the mods don't do their jobs

see the state of lgbt for another example of mods not caring. it might as well be called tranny central

hiromoot is a disease

>>9035701
>I get to decide what's good for /sci/
Where did you get this idea?

>people post in threads they find interesting. there's no reason your special snowflake opinion should be worth more than others. this is not your secret club, and no one asked you to moderate it
I wouldn't want to moderate it even if I was asked to, but it sounds like you think this board would be better with no moderation at all, which is obviously silly

>>9035718
>>9035720
the mods are imbeciles
it would be better off with very light moderation, only deleting nsfw shit and so on

>>9032527
I think we need more flat earth threads.

>>9032527
Frogposting should fall under global rule 6 and be banned
>The quality of posts is extremely important to this community. Contributors are encouraged to provide high-quality images and informative comments.

>>9035746
bumping threads to whine about cartoons should fall under global rule 6 and be banned
>The quality of posts is extremely important to this community. Contributors are encouraged to provide high-quality images and informative comments.

>>9035742
Well I think we need more race & IQ threads

>>9035723
this would be fine if math captchas were added

MODs make this board pretty gay

>>9032530
This. "Academia threads" aka school masturbation threads are worse than creationist/flat Earth threads

>>9032732
So you're a fucking retard that literally can't recognize science in a science board, and so prefers to talk about what classes you're retaking this year at CC. Good to know

>>9035701
The boards have topics, fuckface.

>>9032527
The diploma thread was shit, but it served a good purpose. I think we should have a proof/validation/qualification rule or general floating around for people to link their posts to when coming up with bullshit about their qualifications. Want to claim you have a PHD? Link your PHD proof in the proof general. Otherwise you are giving a terrible name to people who actually did work hard for a decade in school to get where they are. Get in an argument about physics, engineering, math, etc? Show your qualification in the proof thread, that way you can easily link to it when you're called out on bullshit, so you can proof you have legitimate qualifications for what content you're trying to argue.

I see time and time again people in /sci/ claiming they have masters and PHDs from top schools in the country/world. How many PHDs did we see in that thread? We saw a juris doctorate, a couple business master's, and mostly engineering/business bachelor's.

I liked the thread tbqh.

>>9035835
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

>>9035846
only morons would post their credentials online. 4chan isn't safe.

>>9032733
>There's a rule against academia threads on /sci/, while you're encouraged to post them on /adv/
>/adv/ is used for asking advice from others
What if it's academically related, but you don't want advice on where to go? What if I don't need advice to what school or job I want to go to because I already work and have graduated? Should I take it to /int/? /b/?

>>9035854
>WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
The irony. You've painted a wonderful caricature of yourself. Also good to see you don't have an argument

>>9032750
>academic threads on /adv/.
No they don't. Advice threads belong on /adv/. Academia doesn't necessarily coincide with asking for advice. Keep your shit threads out of /adv/. It's used for asking advice. That's it. Nothing else.

>>9035871
99% of academia threads on /sci/ are asking what they should major in. Those go on /adv/. The academia threads that are actually about science and math can stay

>>9035864
>I'll shitpost on a shitpost thread and self-righteously tell people to stay on topic

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH

>>9035859
>What if it's academically related, but you don't want advice on where to go? What if I don't need advice to what school or job I want to go to because I already work and have graduated? Should I take it to /int/? /b/?
Sounds unrelated to math or science, therefore take it anywhere but /sci/.

>>9035871
>Academia doesn't necessarily coincide with asking for advice.
The ones this thread is about seem to be, especially when OP said grad school applications.

>>9035874
>I want to be able to post off-topic on whatever board I want, but those meany head mods keep deleting my threads :'(
>I'll just pretend it's everyone else who's upset

>>9035874
please don't embarrass yourself anon

>>9035880
>I'll keep bumping the thread arguing with someone else, filling the board with shit, pretending to care about the board

We really need calc captchas, pol and c spillover is getting out of hand lately and being asked to solve an easy integral in order to post would probably put an end to it. Even if you argue that you can solve them in worlfram alpha I'm sure those mouth breathing retards can't even do that.

>>9035889
Most of /pol/ is fairly educated, being jaded from a cultural Marxist-ran university system

>>9035887
>>I'll keep bumping the thread
I'm saging you faggot, maybe spend more than a week on 4chan to learn how things work

>>9035895
>I'm saging you faggot, maybe spend more than a week on 4chan to learn how things work
Thanks for the bump

>>9035896
You can bump whether I reply or not, that's not my problem. Enjoy your ban

>>9035894
Lol most of pol are reddit kids from thedonald

>>9035899
>Enjoy your ban
For?

>>9035900
>Lol most of pol are reddit kids from thedonald
Other way around

>>9032733
>>9035875
Remind me again how IQ threads are related to science and mathematics, but academia threads not pertaining to homework or advice are not.
>>9035877
>post diplomas
>having anything to do with advice in any fashion
I don't see it.

>>9035899
>HELP ME MODS WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

>>9035905
IQ is psychology, a science... are you in high school?

>but academia threads not pertaining to homework or advice are not.
Because if they were, they'd be about science or math, not academia

>>having anything to do with advice in any fashion
Who are you quoting?

>>9035907
Not that guy, but you're the reason this board is trash. It's beyond saving at this point. The spillover from /b/ and /pol/ is too strong

I'm sick of 'advice on academia career' threads on this board. Academia in general can be entertaining though. I do not want to miss out on the 'lab fuckup' threads.

>>9035916
>im the only sane person, woe is me!!!!
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

>>9032527
yea mods should prioritize on all those stupid /pol/ raids.

File: Screenshot_35.png (215KB, 393x573px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 393x573px

>>9035901
stop replying to him
>>9035889
there was a thread about this recently.
i said this in that thread, but i think multiple choice questions with a timer are the most ideal. something that's quick and relatively easy to answer, but takes time to look up (and also stops computers). something like:

which of the following is/are false?
[eqn]\square~ f \text{ is differentiable} \rightarrow f \text{ is continuous}\\
\square~ f \text{ is monotonic} \rightarrow f \text{ is integrable}\\
\square~ f \text{ is integrable} \rightarrow f \text { is differentiable}[/eqn]

something that would take at most 4 clicks compared to the 5 (though often more) currently, and i'm pretty sure most people on /sci/ could answer that just as quickly as they could identify a store front

>>9035961
>replies to tell others to stop replying
you couldn't keep the self-righteousness to yourself huh

the math captcha idea is always great tho

>>9035961
>implying anyone in CS/biology/chemistry will be able to answer that

File: stephen.wolfram.jpg (51KB, 500x335px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 500x335px

>>9035938
>>9035907
>>9035874
>>9035854
>Projecting this hard

>>9035968
>implying brainlets can answer calc 1
tHeN fUcK oFf LmAo

>>9035975
>le mastermind psychologist


I have to assume you're too ignorant to continue this conversation in an educational manner. Would you rather I just call you stupid instead of ignorant? Because you're acting pretty stupid right now. And mad.

You do realize that since you've been bated from your normal shit posts to actually taking the time to write shit out, it means that I've won the troll battle you started in the first place, right? Since you failed at your pathetic attempt to shit post like the troll you are I figured I'd give you a taste of your own medicine.

I'm glad you realize that you've been bested.

>>9035984
>Wolfram
>a psychologist
???

>>9035984
And you're still insistent that off-topic posts shouldn't be bannable on /sci/. Truly wonderful. I hope we both get banned

>>9035993
Wrong. You're probably no better off than I am in the scheme of things. The truth is, we're just two random people in a random universe randomly interacting right now. I'm a nihilist, buddy, who doesn't believe any of this even has any meaning.

Is this how you comfort yourself about failing as a physicist or an engineer, or even just as an interesting person, by coming on an imageboard and giving people a hard time? Go fuck yourself, cocksucker, and then your fucking mother. And fuck off with the samefagging bullshit.

File: fedorable.jpg (21KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 400x400px

>>9035994
>I'm a nihilist, buddy

>>9035994
>random universe
fuck off with your redditor bullshit

>>9035994
I have only replied. Haven't pretended to be more than one. I'm working on my PhD, while you only have your high school diploma, if that. Might want to reread Nietzsche to sharpen that edge a little more, though

>>9036000
>>9035996
>>9035999
You are out of the game, that's what you wanted.
I'll spend some of my energy to tell you a few things.
First, you are one adorable monkey to my eyes, a really stupid one, since what you just said is wrong, since you can talk about math using words, one plus one is two, and you can understand nature without understanding math, you drop an apple, it falls and so on :)
a small tiny lecture to you, understand it.

And since you are not in, you don't want to know how to.. for example know how to calculate how to get your dream job? Like I have.. or.. How to be the perfect father?
Those are all states of everything in existence, plausible ones.


And yes, I am aware this is waste of time, like trying to teach algebra to a dog, but to others here who don't get this, be humble, don't attack me, but the theories, we will never be finished, but we can use these for literally anything..

be smart, for once in your life at least.

>>9036006
>You are out of the game, that's what you wanted.
>I'll spend some of my energy to tell you a few things.
>First, you are one adorable monkey to my eyes, a really stupid one, since what you just said is wrong, since you can talk about math using words, one plus one is two, and you can understand nature without understanding math, you drop an apple, it falls and so on :)
>a small tiny lecture to you, understand it.
>And since you are not in, you don't want to know how to.. for example know how to calculate how to get your dream job? Like I have.. or.. How to be the perfect father?
>Those are all states of everything in existence, plausible ones.
>And yes, I am aware this is waste of time, like trying to teach algebra to a dog, but to others here who don't get this, be humble, don't attack me, but the theories, we will never be finished, but we can use these for literally anything..
>be smart, for once in your life at least.
Can I get a tl;dr? You redditors need to learn to write proper hooks for your posts, you lose your audience too quickly

>>9036008
Look, if you're still going to troll or act retarded, that's fine.
- Swear
- Ad hominem; Call people names
- Don't provide counter-arguments
- Reject realism and the scientific consensus
That's ok.
Just don't loop.
Looping is cancer.

Personal incredulity and the argument from ignorance are fallacies. You're ignorant.
You imply you have no knowledge of the other kinds, therefore they don't exist.
That is wrong irrational.
:D

>>9036000
Nietzsche isn't even that edgy if you actually spend time reading his works, it's only fedora redditors who cannot grasp a fraction of what he wrote.

>>9036012
What is looping? I can't tell what you're ranting about at this point

File: not-the-same-retard.jpg (65KB, 778x375px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 778x375px

>>9036006

>>9036019
>>9036020
stop replying to pasta you imbecile newfags

>>9036027
said the summerfag

>>9036019
I take it you don't have high reading comprehension?
I can post a test to check your knowledge of scientific principles and you can share the link of your results, timestamped of course.
:D

You have offered zero counter-point, zero counter evidence.
Therefore I see no reason to continue with you if only I have something to intellectually contribute.

Your denialism is fallacious.

>>9036030
I only asked about looping, which wasn't referred to earlier

>>9036038
Well, you'd probably make a good Pragmatist. Leaving ethos and pathos out as emotional and instinctual "convincing" of the consistency of any narrative through rhetoric, you are left with logos, but that gets to be tricky as well if you are not careful.
But, regardless of any narratives consistency, it has to reflect the world at least for the intent of the narrative.
Maths are fun, and surely can be "useful to be believed" but one of its strongest points is this:

All we ever have is a story, and the story is never the world, but the way we approach it is by making the pathways (narratives) in our brain first (connecting diverse narratives as consistently as possible if you are a mathematician, and by your feels if you are everyone else), then we check them against the other pathways (narratives) for consistency. But ultimately for them to be useful we have to see if they reflect the world, which assumes the narrative comes first. In reality, it is a recursion, and our givens are just recursions in equilibrium, not some magical platonic forms. The fault is that we only know our narratives and we always mistake them for the world.
The world is not the picture in our heads. It is out of conveneience that we think so.

So, I feel your frustration. Cutting out the informal first is noble, but necessary. Finding consistency in narratives not readily accessible to your senses, however, is where the effort pays off.

That takes sobriety, and it is no fun to be around a bunch of drunks.

>>9036040
There are a few boards for redditors who get off on using big words for no reason so that nobody can point errors in their arguments because nothing makes sense about them, /x/ and /lit/ will be right for you.

>>9035964
>you couldn't keep the self-righteousness to yourself huh
sorry it came across like that anon
>>9035968
it was just an example, it wouldnt have to necessarily be that difficult.
anyway im sure stem undergrads could answer that

>>9036044
M8 you might want to take a second to look at the conversation and evaluate what youre doin with your life. You're replying to pure, retarded pasta.

>>9032527
There needs to be some kind of board for us nerds in /sci/ and /lit/ where we can discuss any nerdy/academia related thing.

But i would suggest this board to be reserved only for science and math, it's quite hearth breaking seeing good science thread go, only to be replaced by some non-science related crap.

Why don't you tell me what the inner workings of a university has to do with the scientific process before you ask for the board to get flooded with "tfw better degree than you ;)", "tfw better university than you ;)", "dae learning laplace transforms xD" even more than it already is
They warned me about nu-/sci/, but I didn't believe it was real until I saw people unironically defending this shit in this thread

>>9038917
no one gives a fuck about your opinion on this, stop bumping shit threads

File: sci.png (27KB, 180x282px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 180x282px

>someone makes interesting thread
>gets two asked two questions
>5 replies
>will get deleted to make room for popsci and shitposting

>>9038938
>>9038941
Then why didn't you reply to your own golden threads instead? Its rare that a meta thread isn't set to autosage, so lets enjoy it while it lasts, no?

>>9038941
>someone makes interesting thread
>thread literally has no content

>>9038958
>>thread literally has no content
>thread literally allows anyone to create the content based on their curiosity

>>9038969
>thread literally allows anyone to create the content based on their curiosity
Sounds like /sci/

File: true face of sci.png (41KB, 154x246px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 154x246px

>>9038970
no, this is /sci/

>>9032527
There's an 8 Chan board that spends most of its time coordinating race-based stuff on this site. You can fight back, but dont expect to succeed.

>>9036945
:^)

>>9032527
>If you want advice regarding college/university or your career path, go to /adv/ - Advice.

The real way to save /sci/ is to not allow anyone to post who has posted on /pol/ or /x/ within the last month. Could probably help a lot of boards by doing that, honestly

>>9038941
>IQ general
>250+ replies
RIP /sci/

how about after summer there is a word/phrase filter implemented to remove the most common words/phrases attributed to the cancer killing sci and replace them with sci/math things like latex symbols, whatever

>>9041729

Have the captcha be a latex code for a formula that is shown.
/pol/ and /b/ idiots would never spend the time to learn latex just to shitpost and it would also keep out phoneposters (mostly).
Anyone on /sci/ should have literally no trouble.

>>9032527
We have a lot of quasi-religion threads.

A lot.

Where did all the posters making the blatantly retarded, off topic and troll threads come from? I understand /pol/ being raided by their equally retarded counterparts but not the science and math board.

The same shitty threads are being posted over and over, and if they arent outright trolls, they seem like they are written by people with no critical thinking skills. Is /sci/ not even safe from the r*ddit invasion?

Take OP for example, who not only posts off topic threads, but is perplexed by how bad jannies and mods are at their jobs, AND calls the thread limit "maxed"

It boggles the mind that people still think the mods/Hiro care what the users want after what they did to /asp/.