i suppose. i suspect most financial fraud would be caught by the accountants and grant administrators at respective institutions. accounting and best practices around it have been around for a long time.
this discussion is about ensuring scientific velocity by increasing the rigor required to declare success and add new knowledge to the commons.
unless there's large scale fraud going on, i honestly don't think bringing in additional auditors to look at books that are already professionally kept is going to benefit anyone other than said auditors.
> If it was only their money on the line, that would probably suffice. But when researchers (and by extension the institutions they work at) are receiving government grants, I think there need to be independent audits.
these are all nonprofit institutions, some are government run, i'm pretty sure they're required to engage independent professional auditing firms just as a condition of their tax exempt status, let alone acceptance of federal grant dollars.
> i suspect most financial fraud would be caught by the accountants and grant administrators at respective institutions.
If it was only their money on the line, that would probably suffice. But when researchers (and by extension the institutions they work at) are receiving government grants, I think there need to be independent audits.
It won't change until a track record of producing studies that fail to replicate hurts the career of an academic more than not publishing anything at all. As long as publish-or-perish provides a stronger incentive than the negative repercussions of publishing nonsense, this will continue.
I don't know if one necessarily wants to punish for failure to replicate, but I do think that falsified data/records should lead to a death sentence of a scientific career or result in criminal charges if necessary (e.g. for defrauding the associated institutions/grantor). I guess sort of like what Elizabeth Holmes is facing currently.
This sort of lame duplicitous apologia is little but more of the same rhetoric that got the Bay Area into this predicament in the first place. Here is my summary of the article "Sure it's bad, but actually it's not really all that bad. It's not media hysteria, but actually the media that blowing this out of proportion and you're all caring about the wrong thing. Yes it's bad for upscale shops to be robbed, but actually it's not really that bad and you're probably just a rich yuppie for caring. The police can't stop mob burglaries because the mobs are too violent, but also the mobs are just dumb kids and you shouldn't be worried about it."
He's pretending to give a shit but each time that's just a setup for him to downplay the issue and scold you for not caring about other things instead.
Similarly, as I wrote in /r/bayarea a few weeks ago in response to a post titled "At 16/25, almost 2/3 of the posts on the first page of this subreddit are about local crime. I don't think that's an accurate impression of the Bay Area":
The narrative that this post itself is part of:
* Crime is ackshaully down, not up, so...
* ... the subreddit is talking about crime too much ...
* ... and anyways, only out-of-town Nazis/Republicans/Trump voters are posting these articles ...
* ... and anyways, only big companies with insurance are being robbed, so we shouldn't care ...
* ... and anyways, slavery, white supremacy, and redlining made these benighted souls commit these victimless crimes
Does Brave have their own extension repository yet, or are they still leaving that all up to Google? I don't see much value in Brave supporting a feature dropped from Chrome if it only has Chrome extensions and they all drop support for it anyway.
Firefox has said they will implement V3, but "we will diverge from Chrome’s implementation where we think it matters and our values point to a different solution."
Specifically, "we have decided to implement DNR and continue maintaining support for blocking webRequest. Our initial goal for implementing DNR is to provide compatibility with Chrome so developers do not have to support multiple code bases if they do not want to. With both APIs supported in Firefox, developers can choose the approach that works best for them and their users."
> But this is motivated by stereometric reasons – everything on the same latitude is equally distorted
Expanding on this; Mercator is useful for navigation because it's conformal, i.e. it preserves angles. When you're plotting the course of a ship, this is very convenient.
> If I remember correctly, this used to happen on historical maps too, the UK and Europe were often made larger than they actually are.
A consequence of the projection chosen, applied uniformly (e.g. Mercator, which also makes Greenland and Alaska ludicrously large)? Or do you mean maps that enlarged Europe specifically? Mercator is dumb (for anything other than navigation), but there is a significant difference here. China is doing the latter.
> Many maps -especially US maps- enlarged USSR for decades.
Can you provide information or citations for this?
> China says "X must be visible at zoom level Y instead of at Y-5".
That's not the claim made in the thread above: "Sometime in 2014 or early 2015, China’s State Bureau of Surveying and Mapping told members of the Apple Maps team to make the Diaoyu Islands, the objects of a long-running territorial dispute between China and Japan, appear large even when users zoomed out from them." Can you provide any citation to the contrary?
How does an app developer test 911 functionality without actually placing a 911 call? I'm sure 911 operators would not be amused by such test calls; do companies have special testing cell networks that don't connect 911 calls through?
The linked Reddit thread has a whole subthread about that. A bunch of people who claim to be phone system installers say they regularly call 911 to test that it works. Apparently it's fine as long as you tell them that it's just a test and maybe ask to verify observed phone number and location. They probably don't like it if you just call and hang up and then don't answer any callbacks.
You can do a 911 test call. Make sure to tell them it's not an emergency instead of just hanging up. To play it safe, you can call your local non-emergency number and ask them how to do a test call. Sometimes they will schedule a test, sometimes they will just ask you to call outside of peak hours.
Companies have (and I don’t know the right terminology here, but you’ll get the idea) local test microcells that they use to test phones without actually connecting to the real network.
Where I live, if you want to test 911 there's a non-emergency number you can call to setup a test in advance. I think they do it all manually though, but I'm sure Microsoft could work something out for automatic testing, especially if they donated a few thousand dollars to buy whatever equipment the 911 operators needed.
Financial audits would uncover financial fraud.
> "seems like a better deal to audit the results, no?"
Better to audit both.