>>12671432Yes.
Subject: Meta Thread
Post: Why do we have the same threads every day? Why do we have people coming here posting low quality threads consistently? Why do we have people coming here to pretend they know a lot about a topic when they are just copying a blog post, or popsci video, or popsci book, or whatever it is that they just consumed?
If I went on /tv/ and saw 99% of the exact same threads, it would be boring as fuck. But /tv/ isn't like that, because new content comes out all the time, and so the discussions change.
So then why do the discussions never change on /sci/? It would be very easy to do. You read several journal articles on a topic, you find a gap in the literature which no one has addressed, then you post a thread discussing the gap in the literature.
I'll give an example that I haven't checked well:
- onset of huntingtons disease has been found to be inversely correlated with the number of CAG repeats in the gene HTT. CAG repeats in the 30s or lower appear to not cause huntingtons. If humans lived longer, would individuals with CAG repeats in the 30s and 20s eventually get huntingtons? Or is it cleared rapidly enough so that accumulation of the protein never reaches a critical threshold? Any opinions? Also Aging General I guess.
I'd bet money that this thread has never been posted on /sci/. And I imagine that several biobros would find the topic interesting. It asks a question that people likely haven't thought about before, based on bringing together several pieces of information. It is not entirely an original thought, since it is piecing together pieces of information, but its not as unoriginal as those fermi paradox posters who make an OP where their post is literally exactly what is in the video the link to.
