It does make some salient points, but it too is starting to feel a bit like astroturf.
Astroturf is created by billionaires to make it seem like a bunch of ordinary people agree with them. A legit article about several actual instances of corporations killing FOSS does not become astroturf just because a lot of ordinary people found it useful enough to post and cite.
The solution offered is not entirely clear but I read it as "do not federate with huge corporations because they will bury you".
I'm not on Lemmy. I posted in my kbin instance.
If your employer would not want to lose you, think about what would make it work better for you and then talk to your manager. More days WFH, or shorter hours on days you're in the office, or a big fat relocation package, or whatever works for you.
If they can't/won't help, don't quit until you have another job lined up. Make sure they know it's why you're leaving.
but not needing two hands/multiple clicks
C'mon, this is the NYPost. Their own link to the wayback machine shows the ad's been up since 2020.
because people like being where people are
That's exactly the problem with mega-instances. From the link posted above:
As expected, no Google user bated an eye. In fact, none of them realised. At worst, some of their contacts became offline. That was all. But for the XMPP federation, it was like the majority of users suddenly disappeared. Even XMPP die hard fanatics, like your servitor, had to create Google accounts to keep contact with friends. Remember: for them, we were simply offline. It was our fault.
Thanks for that.
Lack of blinding is a serious issue for subjective outcomes but blinding when treatment effects are obvious to both intervention and control groups is dishonest (Pharma does it all the time to make their trials look more credible than they are).
Open label is the norm for cancer trials for exactly this reason. It is important to consider the biases that may arise, in subjective endpoints especially. But it is ludicrous to dismiss research on this basis alone. We can't randomise 12 year olds to become lifetime smokers or not, let alone use placebo controls, but we do know that smoking kills. It's just a bit more complicated to prove it when perfectly designed RCTs are not possible.
Also. can we have an option for links to magazines/content opening in a new window/tab? Obviously ctrl-click, shift-click, or right click <...> solves the problem but not needing two hands/multiple clicks to avoid losing the current page would be fab.
Professional bodies or academics do sometimes survey their fields, especially when it's politically important to make a point, eg
Two thirds of economists say Coalition austerity harmed the economy
Top economists warn ending social distancing too soon would only hurt the economy
Rival schools of thought often organise letters implying that their stance is the 'consensus' (whether or not that claim is reasonable). Or a campaign to establish a new consensus is launched in an academic paper.
For some fields, like medicine, various organisations produce guidelines, which are increasingly evidence-based rather than opinion-based (ie they look at the evidence rather than surveying professional opinion). The guidelines are not necessarily the consensus but if there are substantial errors or omissions these are likely to be protested and, where appropriate, corrected. Consensus groups are sometimes convened to produce statements with some weight but they are vulnerable to manipulation; I know of one which reconvened after new data were available and the chair (who was well-funded by the drug company) simply expelled everyone who'd changed their minds.
So, there are some formal and informal mechanisms but it's really very difficult to discern what 'the' consensus is from outside of a field (or even from outside of a very specific niche within a field). The sorts of claims you cite in your OP are often quite reasonable but they're often also misleading (and quite difficult to prove either way). If anything important rests on the claim, you need to dig a bit (lot) deeper to find out if it's reasonable. And, of course, bear in mind that facts change and today's minority might be tomorrow's majority.
Your post has appeared in the wrong sub but the pressure vessel absolutely was jerry-rigged and the viewport wasn't up to the job: A whistleblower raised safety concerns about OceanGate’s submersible in 2018. Then he was fired.
The report detailed “numerous issues that posed serious safety concerns,” according to the filing. These included Lochridge’s worry that “visible flaws” in the carbon fiber supplied to OceanGate raised the risk of small flaws expanding into larger tears during “pressure cycling.” These are the huge pressure changes that the submersible would experience as it made its way and from the deep ocean floor. He noted that a previously tested scale model of the hull had “prevalent flaws.”
...
A day after filing his report, Lochridge was summoned to a meeting with Rush and company’s human resources, engineering and operations directors. There, the filing states, he was also informed that the manufacturer of the Titan’s forward viewport would only certify it to a depth of 1,300 meters due to OceanGate’s experimental design. The filing states that OceanGate refused to pay for the manufacturer to build a viewport that would meet the Titan’s intended depth of 4,000 meters. The Titanic lies about 3,800 meters below the surface.
So that people give them free advertising by taking pictures and putting it on their social media.
And so that the kind of people who post photos of their food on social media will come there for the pictures, not the food.