Well we wouldn't want Proton, it would be 2000x less lightweight than electron! /s

It seems to me that Tauri is maybe a better direction to invest resources in than a direct electron-but-Firefox. Its lighter weight and better sandboxed, and can presumably be configured to run with a Gecko engine instead of a chromium-based webview. I have no idea its status, but geckoview does seem to exist.

So all their products are breaking...

To be honest, I'm not sure if it would be more concerning for them to have just one fatal issue with their process, or two unrelated ones.

To be honest, their demand that OpenSUSE rebrand left a bad taste in my mouth. I get the logic behind it, but the time for that passed a long time ago (probably about 15 years ago).

What happened with all the privacy invading stuff which Audacity went through a couple years ago? I never heard whether it got reverted or not.

I'm gonna pitch that a potato is a volume (3D), a chip is a surface (2D), and a fry is a line (1D), and so fries and chips should be flipped.

tl;dr: science is in the eye of the beholder, you can only know if it's science if the methods are transparent and you have access to data, as well as critiques from unbiased parties.

This thread seems to have formed two sides:

1. unless it's published, peer reviewed and replicated it's not science, and
2. LeCun is being elitist, science doesn't have to be published. This point of view often is accompanied by something about academic publishing being inaccessible or about corporate/private/closed science still being science.

I would say that "closed"/unpublished science may be science, but since peer review and replication of results are the only way we can tell if something is legitimate science, the problem is that we simply can't know until a third party (or preferably, many third parties) have reviewed it.

There are a lot of forms that review can take. The most thorough is to release it to the world and let anyone read and review it, and so it and the opinions of others with expertise in the subject are also public. Anyone can read both the publications and response, do their own criticism, and know whether it is science.

If "closed" science has been heavily reviewed and critiqued internally, by as unbiased a party as possible, then whoever has access to the work and critique can know it's science, but the scientific community and the general public will never be able to be sure.

The points folks have made about individuals working in secret making progress actually support this; I'll use Oppenheimer as an example.

In the 40s, no one outside the Manhattan project knew how nuclear bombs were made. Sure, they exploded, but no one outside that small group knew if the reasoning behind why they exploded was correct.

Now, through released records, we know what the supporting theory was, and how it was tested. We also know that subsequent work based on that theory (H-bomb development, etc.) and replication (countries other than the US figuring out how to make nukes, in some cases without access to US documents on how it was originally done) was successful and supported the original explanations of why it worked. So now we all know that it was science.

The thing about green photons having too much energy isn't really true, though it's commonly talked about. Blue photons are significantly higher-energy than green, and are very well-absorbed. There's speculation that our sun (being a greenish star) just produces too many green photons, and absorbing so many so fast would be detrimental, but I haven't seen that definitively proven yet. People are trying, though -- there are all sorts of papers about making artificial supplementary antennae to absorb in the green region.

There are a couple proposed reasons to reflect green, which range from information theory arguments about decoupling different parts of the photosynthetic mechanism, to the 'purple earth' hypothesis mentioned in another comment, to the 'green sun' idea. My point is, the why of green photosynthesis is not a settled matter.

Also, the absorbance of red and blue photons isn't because red and blue photons have useful energies, specifically. The photons excite electrons in a 'high energy' path and a 'low energy' path, yes, but the elections excited by these photons don't directly do chemical work -- these exitons are in a quantum-coupled system which is very complicated to understand (I won't even pretend I understand it fully), and the reduction potentials further down the line are only indirectly (and not proportionally) connected to the energies of the original photons.

Basically, we have studied photosynthesis really intensively for like 50+ years, and in some ways it's still basically magic. The more we study it, the more information we have, but more often than not that leaves us more confused, because it's just a crazy system. And I, for one, think that's pretty damn cool.

Will edit later with sources.

Photoshopped, unfortunately. They change, but not that much.

I can only assume they're trying to talk about concrete 3D printing, but oh boy is that not ready for anything which needs strength.

They're ways to search on a specific site from the engine's search bar. For instance, !gsch cows will search for cows on google scholar from DuckDuckGo. I don't know how stamdardized bangs are across engines, but they're super useful if you use a bunch of obscure search tools on the day to day.

That is weird. I don't think i've ever seen a sample dewar that couldn't last two weeks, most are fine for a month or more. How the hell are they designing their sample storage system, that it's only go of for four days? Are they insulating with Styrofoam?

Pro tip: use zotero. Its an open-source bibliography program, you can export the entire bibliography at once in whatever format you want.