AI tidies up Wikipedia's references and boosts reliability

I think this all really the cost of admission for the ease of self-publishing. Now any jerk off can post about their opinions on keeping abstracts while using the bathroom on company time.

As you say there's a pretty big gap with the way researchers read through papers and the way the science media communicate about research with laypeople. It's a hard problem that needs more attention than it gets.

(Probably one of the most useful classes I took in grad school was a class in the beginning that forced us to read 10 papers a week and write summaries. The class was hell as obviously there was no way to properly understand each paper on top of your research and other classes. But it made us great at being able to quickly winnow papers for the meat of each paper and also made us great at finding papers with... dubious methods.)

This happens in the HN comments all the time. People just assume the other person isn't actually going to stop read it.

Often they just read the wikipedia article that cited the paper.

Now I don't really know how to use wikipedia but I thought it was one of those fake edits people might do as a joke. Went checking edit history and stuff to find out and turns out someone else tried to point out the myth too and some jackass with authority is jealously guarding that myth to keep it on the page forever.

Went and checked the government documents myself, among other things there is no Colt material making that claim in that context. Government also ordered cleaning kits, Colt supplied cleaning kits, so it's also contradicted by fact there too. Simple thing is there just weren't enough to go around, supply shortages, and someone at some point created the myth by misunderstanding that a design to "reduce fouling" thereby "reduce cleaning" don't in any way no hell no how imply "self-cleaning" in that way. Yet the claim remains on wikipedia, without clarification, because I guess some idiots repeating the myth in a book makes the myth okay.

I went and checked that book, too. No source of the myth in the cited book. It's completely fuckin made up and anyone with half a brain and a day using a firearm would know that, but there it is. All because someone, for some reason only God knows, personally wants it to be there and has the authority to keep it there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiio%27s_laws

They were right, on a case by case basis. It meant a brighter, more enlightened future for me personally.

I was born in nowhere Appalachia with access to nothing. A third tier failed retail store was exciting to have access to; a McDonalds was exciting to have access to. The Web appeared like god damn magic cast down from the heavens circa 1994-1995. I had almost zero interest in computers growing up in the 1980s and early 1990s. I immediately understood what could be done with the Internet: I didn't need to ask permission, I could just immediately start creating anything I was capable of building on this new canvas; no licensing, no heavy government restrictions, no enormous bureaucratic walls to climb over: dial up and go. Go learn, go create, go chat with people from Australia or France, go meet thousands of people on WebChatBroadCasting or IRC, go become part of the Doom & Quake mod scene and learn how to program/script/design levels/whatever.

I think only highly privileged people would fail to grasp how extraordinary it was, they already had access to really nice things.

Why would that be a bad thing? Cases where corporation win, customers lose, are newsworthy because they're so much rarer than the mundane and taken for granted state of affairs where corporations make money by helping customers. Are your best examples of times that technological progress hurt us TV and the internet? They clearly helped a great deal, on net.