@fossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish • 3 days agoResourcesmander.xyzimagemessage-square222fedilinkarrow-up1853arrow-down146
arrow-up1807arrow-down1imageResourcesmander.xyz@fossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish • 3 days agomessage-square222fedilink
minus-squareBodyBySisyphus [he/him]linkfedilinkEnglish11•2 days agoMaybe you should read the paper and find out.
minus-square@brianary@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglish-2•edit-22 days agoWhy? I’m not the one using it to justify an argument.
minus-squareBodyBySisyphus [he/him]linkfedilinkEnglish11•2 days agoBecause it would be a more efficient way to understand their actual methodology than posting random guesses on a comment thread?
minus-square@brianary@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglish-1•1 day agoIt’s not my job to make your point. You don’t get free labor.
minus-squareBodyBySisyphus [he/him]linkfedilinkEnglish3•1 day agoIt’s not my job to read papers for you. You don’t get free labor
minus-square@brianary@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglish0•17 hours agoSo you didn’t read it either? Interesting.
minus-squareBodyBySisyphus [he/him]linkfedilinkEnglish1•8 hours agoNope, guess you’re going to have to read it yourself to find out if they’re assuming instant, frictionless transport of goods.
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.