elduvelle, 1 year ago to random

Hippocampal Replay Q&A

What are some things you’ve always wondered about hippocampal #Replay? ⚡​🧠​
They can be simple questions (like: “what’s the longest replay you’ve ever seen?”) or more complex (like: “does replay = thought?”).
Fire away! You might get an answer (not necessarily from me: anyone can answer!)

#Hippocampus #NeuroReplay #Neuroscience #PlaceCells

davidslifka, 1 year ago to spreadmastodon

Hi Mastodon Spreaders @spreadmastodon -

Who would be up to coordinate a volunteer welcoming committee, to search for intro hashtags and welcome people / provide resources?

Let's get this going!

LegalizeBrain, 1 year ago to random French

Est-ce que je viens de lancer le premier épisode de X-files ?

Oui, tout à fait.

Est-ce que je prends un p'tit coup d'vieux ?

Pas trop, si on excepte le fait que ces écrans d'ordi cathodiques et la coiffure de cette pauvre Gillian Anderson m'ont semblé normaux, à une époque...

MetalSamurai, 1 year ago to fediversenews

@spreadmastodon @fediversenews I’m seeing more and more posts about the rapid growth of dot social (about 4000 a day according to @mastodon_daily_active_users )

I’m more convinced that what’s needed is a crèche instance for people who don’t want to choose. A highly moderated, deliberately short term home with maybe mentoring or guidance to follow people and find a long term home.

From: @glassbottommeg
https://peoplemaking.games/@glassbottommeg/110233542970482307

elduvelle, 1 year ago to random

Hmm I’m trying to upload to Mastodon a video that is supposed to be 30.2 Mo, but I get an error saying I can’t because it’s more than 40 Mo.. anyone knows how to fix this?
#MastodonHelp

Ayuno_N, 1 year ago to random

Listening to @behrenstimb at #LearningSalon now. Already hyped as he digs into what we consider cognitive behaviour.

Wanna join?

https://crowdcast.io/e/learningsalon/61

He's also doing a lot of back and forth with John Krakauer, which is neat too!

elduvelle, 1 year ago to random

#TheLearningSalon is happening now!!
Unfortunately I have absolutely no time these days… otherwise I would totally join!

elduvelle, 1 year ago to random

Writing my “introduction biography paragraph” for a conference and it’s almost the most difficult thing I’ve had to do
(More difficult: writing your own recommendation letter)
Also there is no way I am writing in the third person 😂​
Any examples of self-written (or not) personal bio are welcome!!

elduvelle, 1 year ago to random

The level of climate change denialism (or probably the exposure given to the denialists) on MuskTwitter is simply disgusting. What a sad use of the propaganda machine that it has become… Full support to the brave scientists who try to explain patiently. 💚​
#ClimateChange #SaveThePlanet

thomasfuchs, 1 year ago to random

Me: “Having to choose an instance makes people not join Mastodon”

Pundit: “They should have to choose an instance”

Me: “They won’t. They just don’t sign up.”

Pundit: “They should just choose an instance”

How do you even logic

davidslifka, 1 year ago to random

Hi @spreadmastodon (the discussion group of awesome people),

Meet http://spreadmastodon.org (the site), and

@spreadmastodon (the account). :)

So grateful to all of you for your ideas, support, and partnership, and looking forward to doing lots more together ahead.

davidslifka, 1 year ago (edited 1 year ago) to random

In 2004, the web was under threat.

Microsoft’s browser held 95% market share, but failed to protect against viruses and spyware. The internet was becoming more centralized and less safe, stifling innovation.

So a movement began: Spread Firefox. People rallied around open-source software that fixed the problems, building and marketing it together.

Today there is another movement to break from centralized social. But it hasn’t had a name - until now.

@spreadmastodon and #TakeBackSocial

(1/3)

mmasnick, 1 year ago to random

Okay people: who has one of those e-ink notepad thingies? I know a lot of friends swear by the Remarkable 2, and I've played with it, but couldn't quite fall in love with it. But I've been looking at the Supernote A6X and thinking... you know... that looks like it would work for me. But... still... not sure I can justify the price, which is quite high.

elduvelle, 1 year ago to random

Hi @maystodon !
Shall we discuss what to prepare for #Maystodon ?

For those already on Mastodon, one contribution would be to pledge/ try / attempt to post only on Mastodon for the month of May (well, except to promote Ma(y)stodon); and of course to welcome and help all newcomers!

For those on Twitter or other places, it would be to join and pledge / try to only post Mastodon.

Do you think it is too much to ask? 🤔​

plainoldcheese, 1 year ago to fediverse

Why is it that sometimes I'll see a toot with replies but I'm unable to see the replies? Or I'll see a reply but be unable to see the original post? It feels like pieces of the conversations are just missing.

#mastodon #mastodonHelp #mastoHelp #fedi #fediHelp

neuralreckoning, 1 year ago to random

A short argument for why the big publishers cannot be part of a publishing reform effort

Science is stuck in a vicious cycle it is hard to escape from. The decision to publish a scientific paper is made based on an evaluation of its likely importance and technical correctness. Scientists are evaluated based on these publication decisions, and resources (jobs, grants and promotions) are distributed accordingly.

The current system distorts scientific priorities. Science is incredibly competitive, resources are allocated on a short term basis, and the primary metric used to evaluate scientists is their publication record. As a consequence, there is an unavoidable pressure to select problems and design studies that can lead to results that are likely to be favourably evaluated and published in the short term. This is in opposition to the long term scientific value, a fact that appears to be widely acknowledged by working scientists (https://www.vox.com/2016/7/14/12016710/science-challeges-research-funding-peer-review-process).

The current system is a vicious cycle and stable equilibrium. In principle, we could choose to evaluate scientists and their work in a better way. However, no individual or small group can do this alone. If an institution chooses to hire scientists who do work that they believe will be of enduring scientific value despite being unlikely to win short term grant funding, they will take a huge financial hit. Public research is under such severe resource constraints that this is simply not feasible for most institutions even if they wished to do so. Similarly, a public funding body that makes decisions based on long term scientific value and not short term publishability is likely to be able to count fewer high profile papers in their output, and compared to other funding bodies will appear to be underperforming when they are reviewed at the government level. Individual scientists have even less flexibility than these institutions.

Journal prestige cements this problem. It is the widespread availability of an easily calculated metric based on journal prestige that makes this cycle so hard to break. If there were no such metric, different groups could try different approaches and the effect would not be so obvious in the short term. The availability of the metric forces all institutions to follow the same strategy, and makes it hard to deviate from this strategy.

The majority of big publishers commercial value rests on their journal prestige. If there were no funding implications to publishing in one journal rather than another, scientists would be free to choose based on price or features. There are widely available solutions with better features at virtually no cost. Consequently, the entire business model of these publishers would collapse without the journal prestige signal.

Big publishers therefore cannot be part of the needed reforms. The success of these reforms would untie the evaluation of the quality of scientific work from the journal it is published in, and this would destroy the business model of these publishers. They will therefore do everything in their power to resist such reform.

Divorcing from the big publishers will not be enough. Journal prestige is the cement of the current negative stable equilibrium, but eliminating that will not guarantee a globally better system. We need systems for publishing and evaluating science that is diverse and under the control of researchers. This is what we intend to do with Neuromatch Open Publishing (https://nmop.io/).