And people here keep getting ruder and ruder for no reason. It’s not like I have any actual authority to make this happen.

I mean, you could have just said “I don’t like that idea because I’m not creative or innovative enough to contribute something of value that would be cited by others, so that would have prevented me for padding my resume with the stuff that I was able to produce.” That would have been much more courteous.

The woman didn’t sign a EULA with the vendor.

I would say your three reqs are met.

Sue the software company for defamation.

Just being “quotable” isn’t going to get you cited (and thus paid). Your work has to be worth being quoted.

Right now, the vast vast majority of published academic work is absolute garbage that no one will ever care about. Even most of the people writing and publishing the garbage barely care about their own garbage. It’s just cranking gears to pad their resumes.

If we rewarded people for high value work, and incentivised cranking out garbage, then we would get more high value work.

And how will has that really worked?

Wouldn’t publishing a lot of quotation worthy work be better than publishing a lot of work that isn’t quotation worthy?

Right. And shouldn’t those people be compensated for their work?

Under my system, a reseacher would be incentivised to sue the publisher claiming their research should have been cited. If anything it would create “research trolls”.

However, a researcher could purchase professional insurance that would handle those claims.

Can’t or won’t?

No, they are the not-a-bank’s not-a-banks.

That’s why you should only bank at banks and not bank at not-a-banks.

Dude. Literally no one is out there screen shotting “tankies” on lemmy. It’s just in your head.

Persecution complex really knows no bounds.

Orthodox

The Orthodox communion is having a bit of a revival right now. Which happens on occasion for them, because they are really misunderstood in the West.

For example, in the 2000s they had a brief boom period where “new-agey” type people were attracted to the mystical aspects of the church. I think that boom was short lived because those people really just wanted spiritual consumerism, and, as far as Christian denominations go, Orthodoxy is hard work. It’s not for beginners. If you aren’t born into it then it’s really hard to break in. (By my understanding is that if you do the hard work the community and spiritual benefits are really meaningful.)

Unfortunately, today their current boom (if it’s still going on, this information is a few years old now) is coming from Proud boys-type people. They were interested it it because it’s seen as adequately homophobic and sexist for them. My guess is that their interest was ultimately short lived as well because they aren’t going to be interested in doing the work any more than the Live-Laugh-Love crowd was.

That preserving rituals is important for maintaining community.

Orthodox

I’m sure the Catholics would disagree with me, and that’s fine with me. But personally I would say the Orthodox are the oldest continuous movement of Christianity. Not only do they historically beat out the Romans by a few decades, but also they have maintained a far more consistent liturgy over the millennia. The Catholics have had a a good handful of major liturgical changes that I would say constitute a few major breaks in historical consistency.

That’s not a criticism from me. I’m Anglican.

If only Christians centuries ago agreed on a basic statement that could define what is orthodox Christianity…

🙄

🙄

🙄