@fossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish • 3 days agoResourcesmander.xyzimagemessage-square226fedilinkarrow-up1858arrow-down146
arrow-up1812arrow-down1imageResourcesmander.xyz@fossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish • 3 days agomessage-square226fedilink
minus-squareBodyBySisyphus [he/him]linkfedilinkEnglish12•3 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•2 days agoIt’s not my job to make your point. You don’t get free labor.
minus-squareBodyBySisyphus [he/him]linkfedilinkEnglish4•2 days agoIt’s not my job to read papers for you. You don’t get free labor
minus-square@brianary@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglish0•1 day agoSo you didn’t read it either? Interesting.
minus-squareBodyBySisyphus [he/him]linkfedilinkEnglish2•16 hours agoNope, guess you’re going to have to read it yourself to find out if they’re assuming instant, frictionless transport of goods.
minus-square@brianary@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglish1•2 hours agoIf it’s not compelling enough for you to read it to support your position, why would I read it?
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?