I'm not sure what the replication crisis (which as others have noted is certainly not exclusive to psychology--they're just the only field that is acknowledging it and taking steps to address it) has to do with bias (by which you seem to mean political bias, not statistical bias which is very different). Your attack on what you perceive to be bias on the part of researchers really seems like a non sequitur with respect to replication.
I'm surprised that so many folks here (obv not everyone) have so readily accepted the word "brutalist" to apparently mean "simple, functional, and minimal", because that's definitely NOT what brutalism entails in the architectural world!
I really like a lot of brutalist architecture, but much of it is far LESS functional/useful/practical than other styles. Brutalism was an aesthetic, largely a reaction to existing forms--many of which were characterized by their utility! A lot of brutalist architects were rebelling against the bourgeois notion of a building as merely (as they saw it) "a place intended for humans to live, work, and play", and instead asserting the notion of a building as an artistic form in its own right, which often meant intentionally disregarding or downplaying the importance of the building's utility for the humans who interacted with it! Anyone who has lived or worked in a brutalist building can aver this truth: if the building served its function w/r/t humans, it was often DESPITE its artistic intentions, which prioritized almost everything else instead.
Thoughtful Machine Learning by Matthew Kirk is the closest thing I've seen. It's several years old by now (2014). That said, I don't see many people trying to use this approach in practice.
I wouldn't normally say this, but since you appealed to authority first... are you aware of how absolutely dismal ASU's reputation is in academia in general?
I am the same as you. Way worse, actually. When things get really bad (e.g. 500+ open tabs in Firefox), I spend ~20 minutes closing as many obviously "left-over" and otherwise uninteresting tabs, and then I save all of the remaining tabs to a new folder of bookmarks, then close the window. It's not ideal, but it does make sure that "potentially interesting" things I've seen don't get lost forever in the internet ether.
Good observation, gaming is absolutely a post-modern phenomenon. Any creative works with which audience actively engage and interact (rather than just observe)--and especially those that by necessity require the audience's engagement, or blur the line between the creator and the audience--are by nature post-modern.
Right? It's so weird that the dudes that rail against postmodernism fundamentally fail to understand that it's not a single assertive ideology, it's just a simple observation of the way things are in the world around us. It's not like anybody has ever set out to "make postmodernism happen", it's just a condition that has arisen via historical consequence. So when people attack "postmodernists", it's like--you realize that these philosophers did not "create" postmodernism, right? They just describe what they're seeing in the world.
Well, yeah, by implying that comparing ICE agents to war criminals tried at Nuremberg is an unfair thing to do--which is not at all necessarily true--he's discussing politics. Hell, he's taking a side.
Hm, I think I disagree with this. The famous statistician and scientist RA Fisher said "To consult the statistician after an experiment is finished is often merely to ask him to conduct a post mortem examination. He can perhaps say what the experiment died of." and less-statistically-inclined researchers in academia have often observed this to be true: when statistical/analytical/"data" related considerations are not taken into account during the early stages (design, planning) of a project, it is very difficult (and time and money consuming) to "bolt them on" after the fact. If "AI" (or whatever you want to call it) is going to be a fundamental feature of a product, data scientists (or whatever you want to call them) should be involved right from the very beginning.
We scientists WANT (desperately want!) anyone and everyone, experts and neophytes alike, to read and pay attention to our work! The unavailability of scientific research papers is in no way due to snooty scientists restricting the availability of papers to others in the ivory tower. This is on the publishers, who charge massive rent-seeking mark-ups for actually doing very little work and providing very little value in this digital age. It is also on the system of sticks and carrots that prevents many scientists (notably those who do not yet have tenure) from publishing in free and open journals by tying our livelihood to publication in more traditional (non-free, non-open) journals that have high Impact Factors.
The sweet refrain sung by those "independents" who "aren't republicans" until the voting booth curtains are closed safely behind them. I wonder if you'll remember this disingenuous moment when you pull the lever for a straight GOP ticket for the nth time in your life come November. Probably not.
I understand and appreciate the concern for privacy, but something important was diminished when Google Maps started blurring the faces of people who appeared in Street View. I was surprised by the degree to which the previous sense of immediacy and vitality, the feeling that "you are there" was so severely crippled when the face of every human became a blur. :(