Possibly the domain is visible with a traffic monitoring tool. Everything else is between you and the bank via HTTPS. Having said that, whatever is not over https is visible to whoever sits on the same network as yourself.

This is not just about the pressure put on academics to publish, but it is a whole systemic rot, that is not even remotely living up to the "peer reviewed evidence" myth.

The whole idea of an intermediary authority for scientific publishing is a scam, and it corrupts people who want/need to be in the pyramid. The whole thing is ill-conceived, needs to be abolished, and a new thing should be put in its place. At some point someone said, "I can ditch all this and just publish research on my blog, then people will criticize and build upon that". No publisher, no paywall, no problem. If we follow this example, all of these issues can disappear overnight. But the vast majority of professionals value their career more than anything else, including our tantamount tenets of what science communication should look like.

You might object that "intermediary authorities" and "peer review" are essential to prevent disinformation and conspiracy theories. Well, we are past this point aren't we? Did this system prevent conspiracy theories and disinformation, hoaxes, and fraudsters this far? No, so how exactly will it prevent all of these terrible things in the future? If anything, building arguments in the open without paywalls might deter at least some of the conspiracy theorists that brandish paywalls as further evidence of cover-ups and secrecy, and ditching the horrible jargon and high-brow style might actually help the common sense of scientific arguments just shine, and combat the rising anti-intellectualism of right-wing conspiracy theorists.

Like, if you explain Elsevier's etc business model to any lay person (Pay me money so that I let you publish to my super-selective journal and feed your vanity) they have the most funny reactions, because to anyone who is not conditioned to this absurdity, it just sounds like a pyramid scheme.

I share your sentiment. But from a technical point of view, I can't fathom interactive maps without javascript, which is typically blocked by hardened browsers. TBF I think their cause would be better served if they open sourced their data so that people could explore them with arbitrary clients.

Your departure form US defaultism is celebrated here, dear person.

In Reddit, many subs sprouted out of successful AskReddit questions. Just saying. For people who want more traffic in Lemmy, everyone should feel welcome to suggest their interests, zero fucks given. Or what exactly, ban questions about ...fries?

Wasn't this was the Ancient Greek version of gender?

Oh snap he was banned. I had the perfect comeback, I will save it for another instance.

Go suck your mo and find out sister

Some transphobes say that gender identity goes against not only biology but also physics. I don't think that the biology part is valid, and it has long been debunked. But people who think that physics dictates cisgenderism are on a whole other level of stupid. Alonso and Finn is a well established Physics textbook, which makes no reference to sex or gender in it. Because simply physics has nothing to say about gender, and in this context they using the term is just confused oonga-boonga to mean "science". In reality, transphobes are the science-deniers here and they are structural equivalents of conspiracy theorists. I hope that clears things up.

Intent is important I guess

Came here to say this. The top left guy is also pretty chill.

convince friends to switch to firefox from chrome

Ah yes, you reminded me of this gem https://contrachrome.com/ (It is Scott McCloud's Webcomic against Chrome's data mining)