[–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

I personally don't trust the little (probably superficial) insights I have into the topic enough to be able to gauge this; neither do I have the energy to put into discerning slop creators doing it for clickbait with some backyard engineering or genuinely correct amateurs.

I like to outsource that to proper channels, I understand that it's probably not 100% fair every single time, but as I said, I have neither time nor energy to judge it properly myself

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    Exactly, when it comes to highly complex chemical and electrical engineering and physics (as is the case with Smartphones and their lithium-ion batteries), I will take it as an inditcator if it comes from well-established testers with professional equipment like GN (Gamers Nexus) or other established technical journals when talking outside of the video world, but will not accept it as a general and genuine technical (!) insight until it has gone through the due process of scientific publishing and peer review...

    Even then I prefer meta-studies, since they reduce biases and general inaccuracies.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    MIT is an extremely weak license when it comes to defending free/libre rights; e.g. it allows proprietary forks. i.e. companies stealing the code, making their own bullshit corpo product and not even releasing the source code back

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • view more: ‹ prev next ›