For original research, a researcher is supposed to replicate studies that form the building blocks of their research. For example, if a drug is reported to increase expression of some mRNA in a cell, and your research derives from that, you will start by replicating that step, but it will just be a note in your introduction and not published as a finding on its own.
When a junior researcher, e.g. a grad student, fails to replicate a study, they assume it's technique. If they can't get it after many tries, they just move on, and try some other research approach. If they claim it's because the original study is flawed, people will just assume they don't have the skills to replicate it.
One of the problems is that science doesn't have great collaborative infrastructure. The only way to learn that nobody can reproduce a finding is to go to conferences and have informal chats with people about the paper. Or maybe if you're lucky there's an email list for people in your field where they routinely troubleshoot each other's technique. But most of the time there's just not enough time to waste chasing these things down.
I can't speak to whether people get blackballed. There's a lot of strong personalities in science, but mostly people are direct and efficient. You can ask pretty pointed questions in a session and get pretty direct answers. But accusing someone of fraud is a serious accusation and you probably don't want to get a reputation for being an accuser, FWIW.
According to Hal Roach, the Irish do this too, because they don't want to disappoint you. I haven't asked for a lot of directions in Ireland, but I can imagine this is true, or that they will just keep you chatting and see if you forget about your question.
I like manual transmissions but I think DCTs are an improvement for the average car. They seem to have a lot less "hunting" than the typical torque-converter automatic and good precision for the driving conditions. It is easy to put them into a manual-select mode. And, of course, they don't seem to stall.
The manual transmission crowd cannot be convinced. Even when you show them the performance advantages etc. They just want 'fun' and 'engaging', however they define that.
Manual transmissions have certain advantages, particularly in their home next to an ICE. They never 'hunt' for gears; if you want that, you have to hunt. They can be push started if the battery is dead.
Manuals are really good in bumper-to-bumper traffic: often the second gear has an incredible range from slow crawling to 40 km/h. You keep the clutch completely engaged and just work the gas pedal. (The odd time when things look like they are coming to a complete stop, you hit the clutch to keep the engine from stalling. But if the traffic moves again while you are still rolling, then you just re-engage in second gear.
You can do a similar thing in automatics with their 1 or 2 gears, but it doesn't work quite as nicely as that second gear in a typical manual.
Manual transmissions are tougher against heavy loads (than torque converter automatics). If you have to tow a heavily loaded trailer, manual is better. The clutch is fully engaged and so very little energy is lost in the transmissions. Automatic transmissions can heat up under load and can overheat.
A lot of this is not relevant when we are talking electric vehicles, of course.
But in an ICE car, there are good reasons to prefer a manual transmission, even if you're not a sporty driving enthusiast.
I've driven both. I don't know how to define what I feel, but the true clutch is more "fun and engaging". I still went with a EV because it is the right choice, but I want the ICE with manual and if money was limitless I'd have a collection (plus a personal mechanic to keep them all running)
For me, there is the sense that the transmission is doing a precise and correct job, which reflects my intent. That causes the feeling of fun that comes from anything that works well.
On YouTube there are videos of machines doing precise jobs well, which people call "satisfying to watch". Those are relevant to the discussion, I feel.
I have only ever owned cars with manual transmissions for my personal vehicles.
I would 100% get a vehicle without a manual for my next car if it’s an improvement over a manual. I’ve driven a handful of Priuses. I would definitely own one. I would definitely own an EV.
I have no desire to own an ICE-only vehicle with a CVT, automated manual, or conventional automatic. They add complexity and opaque failure modes. Last year I lost reverse in our plow truck (an automatic). Totally undiagnosable for me, nevermind fixable. Had a new used transmission put it, and it started bogging and lurching from a stop and up hills. Can’t work around it, can’t fix it. Sold the truck for $300 to someone who’s going to part it out (the engine wasn’t great either) and moved the plow onto a new used truck.
We’re not all stuck in the past. Some of us do understand the system well enough to be picky about believing something is an improvement.
Another example: CFL lightbulbs flat-out sucked. Avoided them as best as I could. Bought CREE LED bulbs at $20 apiece as soon as they came out at Home Depot.
PowerToys has a wonderful QuickAccent feature. The dashes and hyphens are on hyphen-KEY and some other characters are on comma-KEY, and many symbols are on the key that they resemble, like ¶ is on P-KEY where KEY is the follower key you want to use. I turned off using SPACE because it conflicted with some other software, but right arrow works great for me.
"You're absolutely right, and I apologize. We will try to schedule better in the future."
I have never said it to someone with whom I was having a regular discussion.
OTOH, I used to overuse em dashes because the Mac made proper typesetting possible. It used to be the sign that someone had read the very useful The Mac is not a Typewriter by Robin Williams.
Here is the part of the test.c source from V7 Unix:
main(argc, argv)
char *argv[];
{
ac = argc; av = argv; ap = 1;
if(EQ(argv[0],"[")) {
if(!EQ(argv[--ac],"]"))
synbad("] missing","");
}
argv[ac] = 0;
if (ac<=1) exit(1);
exit(exp()?0:1);
}
So, if the professor was missing the "[" command, they were missing a link. More likely, they had a weird orthodoxy about using "test" instead of "[" because reasons. One good reason to use "test" instead of "[" in a Bourne shell control statement is if you are running a list of commands between "if" and "then", and the test is the last part of the list.
Another good place to use "test" is if you are not in a control statement and you are just setting $?.
I had a friend who started the game saying, "The game of Mao is like the game of life. You come into it not knowing the rules but you get penalized for them anyway." I always liked that opening, more than "The only rule you may be told is this one."
Dec 7, 2025 (A day that will live in infamy?) Linked from TFA:
> > > one word: repositories view
> > what do you mean?
> It's possible, and the solution is so silly that I laughed when I finally figured it out. I'm not sure if I should just post it plainly here since Anthropic might block it which would affect opencode as well, but here's a hint. After you exhaust every option and you're sure the requests you're sending are identical to CC's, check the one thing that probably still isn't identical yet (hint: it comes AFTER the headers).
reply