@fossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish • 3 days agoResourcesmander.xyzimagemessage-square232fedilinkarrow-up1861arrow-down146
arrow-up1815arrow-down1imageResourcesmander.xyz@fossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish • 3 days agomessage-square232fedilink
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•2 days agoSo you didn’t read it either? Interesting.
minus-squareBodyBySisyphus [he/him]linkfedilinkEnglish2•1 day 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•15 hours agoIf it’s not compelling enough for you to read it to support your position, why would I read it?
minus-squareBodyBySisyphus [he/him]linkfedilinkEnglish1•3 hours agoMy 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.
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.