I agree with you last point, and I really, really want to with the first.

Sometimes science feels more like an art, for chemistry at least. I suppose the counter-point to this is: if you provide sufficient detail to reproduce but your results are still difficult to reproduce reliably by others, then your process wasn’t very robust and should have undergone more development before publishing. Those details may be so minor that you don’t even realize that you overlooked something.

Counterpoint: the scientific method is much simpler than you described.

1. Fuck around
2. Find out
3. Write it down

The rest are details of the above or elitism.

Alternate PhD

Spoken like a round leaf.

All media is biased despite some of it trying to be objective or parading a facade of objectivity. The nice part about obviously bias articles is that their bias is obvious, you don’t need to read between the lines.

If that means you feel it’s a waste of time to read, then you find out it’s a waste of your time faster and can move on.

Some megacorp called Stellantis as of 2021.

Fucking GOOD! Holy hell, still a terrible story to imagine.

And the jolly rancher.

That’s assuming they are competent enough to even use a PDF.

Exactly. Just like the “water isn’t wet” argument, it all comes down to semantics such as how you define terms.

Define genocide how they want, they’re still a bunch of ghoulish war criminals.

Read the manual and if something’s broken, give fixing it a shot even if you end up breaking it more.

When you read the manual, you learn things (often including how to fix them without breaking them more). The more things you know how to fix, the more everything starts to look familiar. This is how those people who seem to be ridiculously good at fixing everything learned to be good.

Same, part of why I picked an X1 gen 9 over the 10 (if I remember correctly) was that the difference in chip mainly affected battery life with only marginal improvements to performance with the newer chip.