>>11303861excuse me?
half the threads on /sci/ should be on /x/. I'd reckon 10% of posters here can understand literature and even fewer have written anything themselves. No one actually talks about science here, it's just schizos vomiting up their "ideas" about how the universe functions without understanding why our current pictures of the world are so successful.
I really just wanted to share a fun, insightful, based paper from my field that many anons probably wouldn't see. I think the literature is exciting and dynamic, something that I never hear science communicators talk about. There are jokes, faux pas, insightful comments, and beautiful writing about some of the most concrete work ever done by human beings. Yes, the language is difficult, but it is not esoteric. Quite the opposite, most scientific writing is very clear and expositional to the point of being dry or simplistic. There are real people that dedicate the best years of their lives to this work and too few people really appreciate it. You seem to be one of them.
Re. not reading the papers. Sorry, but how do you know that? I've read a few of these here and they're legitimate pieces of work with meme names (besides the writers' block one). This board is so slow that I expect a few more gems to surface before it is archived.
Also, reaction posts are cancer. No one except reddit upvote farming leeches making screencaps give a shit if fifteen anons give (You)s.
