fossilesque@mander.xyz to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 1 年前Resourcesmander.xyzimagemessage-square249fedilinkarrow-up1879
arrow-up1879imageResourcesmander.xyzfossilesque@mander.xyz to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 1 年前message-square249fedilink
minus-squareBodyBySisyphus [he/him]@hexbear.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up13·1 年前Maybe you should read the paper and find out.
minus-squarebrianary@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·edit-21 年前Why? I’m not the one using it to justify an argument.
minus-squareBodyBySisyphus [he/him]@hexbear.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up13·1 年前Because 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 年前It’s not my job to make your point. You don’t get free labor.
minus-squareBodyBySisyphus [he/him]@hexbear.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6·1 年前It’s not my job to read papers for you. You don’t get free labor
minus-squarebrianary@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 年前So you didn’t read it either? Interesting.
minus-squareBodyBySisyphus [he/him]@hexbear.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·1 年前Nope, 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 年前If 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 年前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.
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.