Francisco

The linked article has a dedicated section «1.3.6 Key truth #6: ‘There’s hope’».

I believe you are wrong because you are inconsiderate to the OP and to the other readers, by commenting before reading the linked article.

I believe you are wrong because you moan before doing your (very small and straight foward) part.

You haven't addressed a key point on this discussion. Which tells me that either you don't know what you're writing about -- likely! -- or you're pulling a red herring.

The sad state of things is that 90% of the population won't care if their favorite MrBeast video has DRM.

Agreed!!

(unfortunately PeerTube is so far off being a reasonable alternative)

Why? Because of the hosting cost? Where is Youtube getting this for cheap?

Thank you for your thorough answer. I'm feeling it's the AB testing. The issue went away by itself, and now it's back again. Both NewPipe and PipePipe. It's just yt video anyway.

Mastodon

Mastodon

After sparing this paper a fair bit of attention I feel I've wasted it.

Nowhere in the paper could i find in what conditions the test samples were kept during the experiment. This is pretty basic stuff. At this stage I'd wage sloshing was the issue.

Reading this part of the methodology:

"2.2 Initial sperm analysis

After liquefaction...

[Two paragraphs later, in the same section: ] After this first analysis, the 15 sperm samples were split into two fractions. All the samples were exposed to 'Parabolic flight' (split 1) and to..."

Did they liquefied the samples and tested like that? Whaa?

The "After this first analysis" should not be in the "2.2 Initial sperm analysis". It just shouldn't!

Then I think "15 sperm samples were split into two fractions". ... "the samples were exposed to 'Parabolic flight' (split 1)"

splits, fractions, what a mess!! At this stage I've wasted enough.

The paper should be retracted, the reviewers spanked and the editor fired.

Thanks for the thoughtful answer!

I too like to partake into cynical sarcastic self loathing , at times.

And I do like the layered ambiguity to whom your comment is addressed.

Sounds like you just want an snswer.

Well, I'm not a brain surgeon. So, I don't take myself as qualified to make that risk assessment. I agree that all you said up to 'without consent' is a very reasonable starting point to think about it, the answer to it should be made by whomever is qualified to answer it.

As for consent, no pacirnt gives direct consent to who's in/helping the surgery besides the head surgeon. Why do you claim its need in this case?

Thank you for your comment. It realy helped me decide on the clickbaiteness of the posted link.