aakjsdfajsdfh

> Did we all forget that everyone hated Clippy?

no. you didn't get the joke.

Wasn't the output of ffmpeg being more cryptic than the obvious ".mp4" extension a dead give away to you?

The AI commenter is the only one who read the article in this entire comment section. kudos.

But yeah, see how the paper (and your summary) is full of holes? What creates the incentive so that one group become larger than the other? things do not happen in a vaccum, only in this paper I guess. or "endogenously" which might be their code word for "i don't want to investigate who paid for this".

basically, there's one law that can be interpreted two ways (wikipedia NPOV or US abortion law). They argue that if everyone agrees A is better than B and start to push for the A interpretation, the people who likes the B interpretation will just magically go home. Excellent. Who thought it was so easy?

Now, the question I wanted to pose is: why 4 papers in this month alone held this obviously flawed argument, using wikipedia NPOV case as their case study?

thanks. there's plenty pro-constructivism in my humanist-marxist circles. They are either openly hypocrites or too young still (like utilitarianism, it is a good thing if possible after all)

But yeah, if you don't still agree it is fringe, and still think so after reading the only link on my comment, then you might as well downvote me. But that is one i'd take gladly.

it is just an intro though. my point is that they are posting several academic articles on that one wikipedia which hunt "succcess" story. and somehow i've seen all of them on the front page here.

Yes. The jerks found meta.stackoverflow.com and for a brief period started a campaign of what is off-topic in each very-specific forum in a effort to drive content to their very specific fiefdoms.

basically after sub-forums like bicycle, gardening etc which didn't fit at all under the programming forum, they opened up for randoms moderators. But the jerks started to abuse it to create a reddit-like web of overlapping forums. in 2018(?) you could not post anything without a question being closed with "offtopic! to ask about this specific setting on android phones with a blue or green protective case you must do so on xyz.stackoverflow.com. closed."

this comment will show as dead and receive downvotes before anyone can read (but i already been doxed enough and only post with new accounts)

be warned that there is a campaign to push wikipedia as a constructivist paradise. that idea is the utilitarianism of international relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(international_...

basically, a joke that only exists in academic circles and US identity politics. They ignore most real politik consequences of their theories (like how under trump, rank and file were more motivated to creatively-interpret laws/their work rules/etc to abuse migrants if that fit their world view. or even very basic things like corruption and brides and biding collusion on infrastructure work will never exist in their models etc)

basically, they paint identity politics as a good thing exclusively. and for some reason, they are producing several papers recently on a fringe wikipedia case study on fringe content.

Funny thing is that they try to promote it here, and the discussion always devolve into how that wikpedia policy threw lab leak under the bus along with other valid-fringe topics like racist-based-discussions on origin. maybe they are tweaking the delivery? anyway. don't know why I waste the time.