qjkxbmwvz

My favorite is Barry Marshall. He thought there was a connection between bacteria and ulcers, which was an unpopular opinion at the time. So he intentionally drank the offending bacteria, got sick as expected, and then people believed him.

More here, including (which I didn't know until now) cardiac catheterization.

I'm sure better sources exist but https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/these-five-doctors-experimented-on-themselves-and-made-big-breakthroughs

Innovation, perhaps; progress...that's something else.

I, read this like, William Shatner, in his, role as, captain, Kirk.

People Without Honor Can’t Be Trusted.

Sounds like something Gowron would say...

Why the HUGE, irreconcilable disparity between your front page and the opinion section?

This is always how it goes, as it should. Horrible opinions shouldn't affect the reporting; and horrible reporting shouldn't affect the opinions. Different publication, but https://newsliteracy.wsj.com/news-opinion/

It's best IMHO to think of them as two completely separate entities.

I'm gonna try to guess the most likely LLM response to your post, trained on reddit data:

"This."

How'd I do?

Pretty sure that's completely acceptable in parts of northern California (source: born and raised in northern California).

I was writing up my problem set answers once, and it involved the (complex analysis) residue. I wasn't sure if there was a shortcut (as opposed to \mathrm); googling latex residue did not produce the search results I was hoping for...

And many folks have headless setups

raspberry pis, home servers, VPSs, etc. It's kinda overkill to install a desktop environment on a headless box if the only reason you need it is so you can VNC into it for a simple task that could be done over ssh.

For some (most?) of us, we don't have ssh access open to the world, so everything is over a VPN. So I can just use NFS over WireGuard which afaik is fairly secure, if you trust your endpoints, and works great over the Internet.

This realization/acceptance led to us having kids.

This is obvious though

currently, you might test a drug on mice, then on primates, and finally on humans (as an example). It would be faster to skip the early bits and go straight to human testing.

...but that is very, very, very wrong. Science of course doesn't care about right and wrong, nor does it care if you "believe" in it, which is the beautiful thing about science

so a scientifically sound experiment is a scientifically sound experiment regardless of ethical considerations. (Which does not mean we should be doing it of course!)

Now, taking a step back, maybe you're right that, in the long run, throwing ethics out the window would actually slow things down, as it would (rightfully) cause backlash. But that's getting into a whole "sociology of science" discussion.