tae glas [siad/iad]

the fact that following up about hallucinated references was met with a second list of hallucinated references is just insulting, imo.

surely needing to go through everything with a fine-toothed comb to make sure that a) a source hasn’t been hallucinated and that b) cited sources actually say what is claimed, is more time-consuming than just doing the research & citations manually?

oh absolutely! it’s vital research & the article seems well-written but still accessible to a lay-person like me.

my only issue was with the editor or whomever wrote the misleading headline (i was expecting to read about a human father), not the article itself & certainly not the researchers.

*mice fathers’ microplastic exposure tied to their mice children’s metabolic problems

i know it’s mentioned in the article, but it feels like a pretty misleading title to omit that this study wasn’t done on humans

for myself, if i can recover passwords etc, i delete the account to lower the possibility of that data being used to train ai, and to lower the numbers of registered accounts they have.

i think stakeholders are more likely to see accounts being deleted as worse than an inactive account, because people can always come back to an inactive account.

so many websites are eager to keep users by making it difficult to delete accounts, or by adding a 14 day wait before they’ll delete an account, etc., so that alone makes me think they want even inactive accounts for usage statistics or to steal data from.