General Updates

So I haven’t been posting here much recently so here are some updates.

Been slowing trying to get back into running, have been slacking off WAAAAY too much lately. Tried using Aaptiv (@aaptiv) which is a training fitness app that has trainers talking you through the stuff, there are a few problems with it.

  1. When you use a stretch/strength training routine or yoga routine, you’re reliant on them telling you what to do, there’s no video guide to show you the correct form, and that’s bad. Other apps like FitBit Coach has videos where you can copy the coach to make sure you have the right form.
  2. On Treadmill/Running routines, they talk in mph, but treadmills here in the UK go in km/h, which requires conversion (1.0 mph = 1.6 kph)

On a separate note, I have bought another attempt at the CKA exam, but this time bought the bundle with the Kubernetes Fundamentals Training from Linux Foundation. Let’s see how different that is to Linux Academy’s training….


A Dilemma…

A random thought popped into my head today, and something I don’t know the answer to.

Assume someone publishes a research paper. For sake of argument, let’s say it’s a Doctor who claims s/he can clone from cloned cells an infinite number of times without genetic instability or degradation.

The paper is published in journals like @thelancet and passes a few verification checks for content and accuracy.

Other doctors extend on, and/or reference the findings in this paper when creating their own.

Now, a few years down the line (or maybe decades), it’s found out that the findings of the original paper were derived using objectionable means. Perhaps the doctor experiments on corpses during the creation of the paper, or kidnapped children to perform said experiments or to extract cells or organs.

This doctor’s paper is subsequently severely discredited.

So what happens to the other doctors’ papers who used or referenced this now-discredited paper? Do their papers get discredited in the same way, even though the authors weren’t aware of the original doctors’ behaviour regarding the original paper? What about the doctors who wrote those newer papers that referenced the (previously good) paper?

%d bloggers like this: