EpsomHorse t1_jan9m4t wrote

This move is actually deceptive and scummy. Yes, articles will be free to read, but only because publishers are shifting their profit mongering to shake down authors rather than readers and libraries. To wit:

> With this move to OA the journals will no longer charge subscription fees and will instead be supported by Article Processing Charges (APCs)...

So now, to finance the unpaid editors and unpaid reviewers, publishers will charge the unpaid authors thousands of dollars to publish their papers. This is literally paying to work for someone, and it's exploitative as hell. And it's furthermore a massive barrier for scientists in the developing world, as well as less privileged developed-world institutions. It's a massive assault on actual DEI.

This scam should not be called Open Access.


EpsomHorse t1_j96g276 wrote

> When you have few opportunities a job is a job even if long tern that job ends up being bad for you and your family. You still do what you have to.

True but irrelevant. The poor, shirtless peasants of Brazil do not have access to the bulldozers and chainsaws necessary to cut down the Amazon, the massive trucks required to drag out trees, the markets to sell them in, nor the mercenaries needed to murder the indigenous people who live there.

The rape of the Amazon is being driven by Brazil's rapacious oligarch scum. The poor they employ to do some of the dirty work are mere pawns.


EpsomHorse t1_j96fdgc wrote

> Better policing and policy is great and all but if poor people are still poor left with no other way to better themselves what else do you expect is going to happen? With no other option people will exploit local natural resources to better themselves.

You're thinking like a WEIRDo - western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic.

Almost all of the inhabitants of the Amazon are uncontacted or barely contacted indigenous peoples who don't share a single one of your values or aspirations. They largely live today as their ancestors lived in the stone age and they are quite content to do so. This means they live in small bands of no more than a couple hundred, build transitory shelters that they use for no more than a year or two, hunt and gather for food, and then move on to greener forest. The damage they cause to the environment self-heals in a couple years, and so their lifestyle is sustainable.

They do not premise their lives on infinite growth and accumulation, the core requirements of capitalism. They do not exploit resources more than is necessary to live their lives.

The Amazon needs nothing more to thrive than to be left alone by Brazilians and other western neighbors.


EpsomHorse t1_j7dwhnh wrote

> Surveyors have been burying metal markers to establish boundary lines for a long time.

Why would you bury things that are supposed to serve as markers? Why not put a plaque qt ground level, or drive a pin down vertically until it's half buried, or use a stone marker above the ground?


EpsomHorse t1_j77rtje wrote

Your source says nothing like what you say it says:

> He said protesters from his small activist group, the Committee to Mobilize Against Dictatorship in Haiti, will continue to level their allegations - so far all unproven - if the Democratic candidate wins the White House.


EpsomHorse t1_j75t6sw wrote

> I wonder what percentage of that top 1% in the DR is baseball players?

Just the smallest handful.

Every single country in Latin America except Cuba is dominated by a small number of oligarch families that own just about everything and everyone of any value. Most of these families have been in this position for centuries.

This is the legacy of Spanish colonization, and its why the entire continent of South America is way less developed than it should be.


EpsomHorse t1_j75stuf wrote

> ... any country colonized by Spain will look like that.

You need to do some backpacking!

Argentinians are indeed mostly European, because (1) there was almost no slavery there, (2) the country carried out a genocide against its indigenous population between about 1870 and 1890, and (3) it received massive numbers of European immigrants between about 1880 and 1930.

The average Chilean, on the other hand, has about a 44% indigenous admixture and a 55% European one, with 1%-2% African DNA.

Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Paraguay and much of Central America is even more indogenous than Chile.

The Dominican Republic's population is almost entirely of African descent.

And so on.

Latin America is tremendously heterogenous.


EpsomHorse t1_j0ejno8 wrote

Fascinating. But explain this to me - if Europe's grape vines have been being grafted onto American rootstock that is immune to this pest for a century or so, why has the pest not died out? Where is it hiding and biding its time?


EpsomHorse t1_j0cok6b wrote

> a) youre wrong in general

The article says I'm right as rain. Do you happen to have some proof of your opinion, because "youre [sic] wrong" doesn't really cut it.

> b) if you were right, you would still be wrong. it would be your boss' fault you got laid off, not the immigrants'

I never said it was the fault of the immigrants. It's the fault of immigration. Not the same thing.


EpsomHorse t1_j09tg6g wrote

> These immigrants, mainly from Haiti and Venezuela, have driven labor costs down...

Interesting. We always hear that those who oppose more immigration or want less of it do so because they're racists or xenophobes. Turns out they just don't want to be driven into poverty and/or unemployment.


EpsomHorse t1_iuqcdat wrote

> It's such an obvious question to answer that I can't imagine the discussion being anything more than a three-second clip of the lady going "uh, duh?"

And yet watch the protests and groans when you tell a science major he needs to take three or four history classes. And witness the shrieks of terror when you tell a history major he needs to take three or four science classes.

So I'd say it ain't obvious at all.


EpsomHorse t1_iu93uga wrote

> And his students.

Who are we to judge the consensual activities that adults choose to partake in?

> He'd have been canned for sexual harassments almost instantly today

No he wouldn't. Even in the puritanical America of 2022, relationships with students are perfectly licit as long as you're not currently teaching them.

> The man was a menace to women in science

Nonsense. There hasn't been a single accusation against him for derailing someone's career, preventing them from getting scholarships, or any other abuse of power.