Daya G.✨🐢@4evrstardancer on Spoutible

I really dislike the “why can’t do & so get the endless chances that xyz had?” Y’all working in the wrong direction. It should be “how do we get xyz to face the same consequences for their actions that so & so did?” Ppl grow & change with natural consequences, not with enabling

Never had to take merch of a pop star I adore down before. Sorry not sorry— refusing to endorse Kamala is a deal breaker for me when it comes to LGBTQ+ rights. Anyways— here’s a photo of me at the WH when Joe Biden signed gay marriage protections into law.

‼️🇵🇸On Sept 26 – ARREST NETANYAHU AT THE UN! Benjamin Netanyahu is slated to come to NYC and speak on the floor of the UN. We say: arrest Netanyahu for genocide and crimes against humanity! Justice for Aysenur Ezgi Eygi! End all US aid to Israel! 📆 Sept 26 🕙 3PM 📍UN, NYC

Genocide intersects with settler strategies to erase or replace us.

If there is anything ground-breaking (exciting to Mike) on the Pharma front, it would be published in a journal with an impact factor >15. If worth keeping an eye on, impact factor of say 5-15, and even therr a lot of junk because it's an extremely low probability anything remotely promising actually works out. This is just for Pharma studies. It varies by discipline. An important study on racism might get published in a journal with impact factor of just 1. The whole science machine prizes Pharma, so people should be really concerned when they see Pharma studies in lower impact factor journals. Another issue to watch for is very bold claims, especially in the title, abstract, and first paragraph of the discussion. Good journals don't allow that. They are very cautious and don't want to mislead people. It would undermine the journal's reputation. If you see over-exuberant claims in those areas, it's generally a red flag. Finally, Google the journal name and publisher. Include the word 'predatory.' There is a cottage industry of journals that use a pay-to-publish model and will gladly publish anything for money. They are increasingly good at trying to make themselves seem reputable, but searching predatory almost always reveals the issues. Two examples of publishers I won't cite are MDPI and Dove, but they now have many competitors. You see lots of bad hype posts from MDPI journals on Twitter. Sometimes I note this, but the hype post will go viral, and the scientific critique will get no attention. People love hopium and will go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to get it.