Wait…you mean I was supposed to actually read the articles I cited???
If YouTube counts 10% as a view, then I can read the discussion by itself and consider myself edumacated.
That’s why the good lord gave us abstracts
And explicitly told us to copy/paste stuff until everybody has a copy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feeding_the_multitude
It’s easy to read articles when you skip the middle parts with all the big words.
Abstracts are good enough for me
Abstract+conclusions is the sweet spot.
This makes me think that given some particular article, the only people that would ever read it in its entirety are its authors and (maybe) a couple reviewers.
My preferred reading order: Abstract > conclusion > results > discussion / analysis > methods > background > introduction
This is the way. This is the way of light and goodness.
Huh then i am the baddest boy alive .
Anyone who fully reads every article they cite is simply bad at time management.
My sister cites articles she hasn’t even read.
She once tried to tell me that the moon only had 16 shades of color (can’t remember the exact number). I told her that couldn’t be true because there’s an infinite amount of points between each shade since color is a spectrum, so she showed me an article with the headline “the 16 shades of the moon”… We argued for a few minutes and then I read the first paragraph, and it said something like “this guy took 16 photos of the moon’s different hues”. The article she was basing her claim off of didn’t even claim what she thought it did lol.
Sounds like she was referring to 16 bit
Real mrn only read titles.
You monster!
