Good day all of you LOVELY Fedizens!

Once again, ANOTHER big week coming up on Fireside Fedi! Please note that all times are Eastern / UTC-4.

Tuesday May 27th at 1000 we'll be speaking with @booteille who is with @Framasoft ! If you don't know #Framasoft then maybe you've heard of #Peertube ? Yeah, that's them! 😁 As well as many other projects!

Thursday May 29th 1500 we are talking to @potterybyosa ! Osa is a #nigerian #american studio #potter. Osa makes absolutely stunning pottery and I can't wait to speak with Osa about their work, potterybyosa.com , and what brought them to the Fediverse!

Finally Saturday May 31st, after a few reschedulings, we'll be speaking with @labr ! This includes both @brothersoul and @DJUpNorth ! LABR stands for #Love a #Brother #Radio . They're a 24/7 online stream for soulful house music and varied genres.

Watch the show live:
#Owncast #Livestream - https://stream.firesidefedi.live

After the show:
#Peertube #VOD - https://video.firesidefedi.live
#Castopod #Fedicast - https://audio.firesidefedi.live

All #Links - https://firesidefedi.live

#stream #owncast #live #interview #firesideFedi #FsF #people #peopleOverPlatforms #protocolsOverPlatforms #fedi #fediverse #open #internet #openInternet #podcast #fedicast #livestream #show #episode #peertube #vod #castopod #writefreely #lemmy #boostplease

@UlrikeHahn
We as researchers are just super naive. If you ask me, those things go back to Big #Tabacco vs #Science
Ironically, they demanded what we in #OpenScience demand nowadays, but with a very different aim... :(

I touch upon that in a recent #preprint on open data: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/hk786_v1

"Long before today’s #Open #Science movements, the Executive Committee of the Sound Science Coalition (1994; cited in Ong & Glantz, 2001) published guidelines that align with what Open Science practices advocate today. For example:
(1) The study design should inform about all hypotheses,
(2) after the study was conducted, the data should be analyzed as described in the study design, and
(3) if the data does not support the hypotheses, no further analyses are necessary.
Shockingly, in #1994 these recommendations were motivated by the fact that parts of the #tobacco industry aimed to #discredit research and researchers on a large scale, with the goal that it could not be legally established that smoking increases the risk of lung #cancer (Drope, 2001; Muggli et al., 2001; Ong & Glantz, 2001). Along this line, one may accuse researchers as having been naive to the vested interests aligning with scientific rigour by non-researchers."