Zalack

Also: https://youtu.be/PmLH_M2B-bM?si=jvJ5UCFD9dlpZfc7

I didn't know that! I just subbed to their service for Make Some Noise so I kind of feel better about shelling out for it now.

We do. A24, for instance, is still making a couple movies by agreeing to work under the proposed terms by SAG. As far as I know, no one else has made such agreements yet. The more of such exceptions that get made, the weaker the AMPTP's position will get.

They're talking about the visions of sci-fi authors, filmmakers, and artists. The tech Bros are the ones being drawn towards those artists' visions.

Bing!

First thing I thought of as well: https://youtu.be/rBQhdO2UxaQ

The problem is that government isn't a computer. Plenty of corrupt governments convict political opponents of stuff like that all the time to bar them from running.

I agree with the other user, there should be as few barriers to who can run as possible, because the more restrictions there are, the more levers bad actors can pull while having some air of legitimacy.

We have a mechanism for this already: impeachment.

Interesting. I'm not sure what the exact path forward would be, but a couple observations. The first is that I do think the lack of transparency into things like peer review hurts the scientific community overall. Often when I don't fully understand why a piece of code is the way it is, reading the comments of the original PR can be really illuminating. Being able to see what sort of issues were raised about a paper during review and how the author handled them could, I imagine, add a lot of valuable context to the paper itself.

The next thing I'm noticing is something my academic friends complain about a lot: the vengeful, egotistic nature of many high-level academics. I don't really know how to solve this problem when stuff isn't anonymous, but I have to imagine that an author being able to see why their paper was recommended against and even being able to respond to it would be good for the author in the long run. In software you learn not to take someone deciding to reject your pull request personally, but also when someone rejects a good PR everyone else can also see that.

Overall I think the process helps blunt egos a little, and also shines a light on those that can't get past their egos in a way that is also healthy for the community. But yeah, I hear you and don't have a 100% good solution to egotistic retribution beyond vague noises about that being a cultural issue that needs to be changed and a vague sense I can't back up with data that opening up the communication lines to public scrutiny might actually help shine a light on that culture and change it.

Referee reports. I'll edit to be more clear.

I work in software, not academia. Would you mind giving me a quick overview of what referee reports are and how they apply? Most of the results on Google seem to assume you already know what they are, and the one concise answer I can find makes it seem like they're job references?

How do they relate to peer review?

IMO open review is the way to go. Having reviews public goes a long long way towards auditing how trustworthy a process is and one of the main sources of trust in Open Source software.

It can be really nerve wracking having your work ventilated in public, but you get used to it. I also think it encourages more polite reviews in some people, as their interactions are also on public display.

There are a few famous developers who used to completely brow-beat people that have publicly started talking about how they are taking feedback to heart about moderating that and I don't think that would have happened if they had only been giving feedback in private.

IMO if we ever get to a point that pulling information from the Internet is as simple as "remembering" it the same way we remember any other information, that could have both significant advantages over having to first read the data visually to ingest it, and terrifying potential to implant "facts" into someones mind.