“But then I had the following thought.
Why are the people not connected to Epstein leaving this orbit, while people connected to Epstein remain?
Shouldn’t it be the other way around?”
To have a direct confirmation of these self-protected circles of power is interesting. Rich donors and academia are some of the players. I’m directly interested about this from the point of view of somebody who tries to do Open Science since a long time: to paraphrase Anand
Why are the people not obeying old practices of academic publication leaving this orbit, while people connected with the useless legacy publishers remain?
Shouldn’t it be the other way round?
The same academic managers are in so friendly relations with publishers which do not offer anything to the scientific community. The honest effort of Open Access has become a caricature where it is entirely normal to baptize the_author_pays_for_publication as the way to do Open Access.
OK, so what is this having to do with the subject of this post? Simple: if the cryptocurrencies communities do want to explore new social models then research (of biological life as decentralized computing, as I suggest) should be a part of it. You can’t turn to the old fatigued elites, because they already gave what they can do to MS or others alike. They don’t have new ideas since a very long time. Hot air with old boys support.
But now comes my point: would these cryptocurrencies efforts support a new research structure? Why not? There are very clever people there who understand the importance.
But maybe they are in bed with the circle of power. Just maybe.
The following are beliefs only (what proof can you ask?). For reasons along the lines explained previously, since years I’m very skeptical about anything ethereum based, but I am really amazed by btc. Well, but who really know?
Does not the cryptocurrency community (or the parts of it which are not in bed with the enemy) want to make a point in research?