[[Knowledge Management]], [[Reproducible [[Social [[Science]]]]]], and [[Academic Workflow]]s – 100 Tweets for @threadapalooza 2020, let's go
#roamcult #𐃏
1/100

Pandoc is a magical piece of software, and if you're not using it for your academic writing you're missing out. Compile (basically) any document format to (basically) any other document format.
2/100
While Pandoc is fantastic, it's a bit like ffmpeg: extremely powerful, but without GUI apps too few people will use it. ffmpeg has a ton of GUI apps that basically just wrap the CLI, Pandoc doesn't have enough of them.
3/100
Citekeys + CSL files + Pandoc can easily cut ~10+ hours from your writing workflow. Citekeys come from LaTeX-Land, you can use them through Pandoc with anything. And CSL files make it super easy to switch citation styles.
4/100
Since many journals have their own version of popular formats, every journal should be required to publish a CSL file, LaTeX and Word Pandoc template ready for submission. I don't want to think about the collective hours wasted formatting stuff for submission.
5/100
Why Pandoc you ask? The one true document format are text files. Lindy effect - they've been around from the beginning, they will be around until the end. Everything else can be created from them – so write your stuff in text files, then use Pandoc.
6/100
"That contradicts your devotion to @RoamResearch!" Yeah, no. If Roam had shitty plain-text export like Evernote, sure. But I can get stuff easily as Markdown (plain text), so I lose nothing and gain a world of features. Use Roam, export to Markdown, publish w/ Pandoc.
7/100
Citekeys are powerful because they are unique ids for whole papers. And unlike DOIs they are _memorable_. citekey:doi = domain:ip
Think in terms of Roam, papers should have unique IDs for paragraphs, so I can do einstein1905movement/ASDJKSL to link to a specific paragraph
8/100
PDFs are a horrible format and should die in a fire. I don't know enough about document formats, but I know there are better ones out there that give the illusion of "uneditable" and that PDFs suck. But Lindy strikes again: we're stuck with them, I fear.
9/100
Talking about "permanence", I feel there's a lot of tension to be resolved around the question of "what do we actually know right now in this particular subfield"? The more we move to pre-prints and "public peer review", the less legible fields become, bc volume increases.
10/100
At least in the social sciences, there is way to much emphasis on "contributing to theory". I've received and seen others receive too much feedback along the lines of "this doesn't contribute much to theory". We need to falsify more, not introduce endless mods to theory.
11/100
Fun paper on that from International Relations
https://t.co/nZEKyxKGdq
12/100

More from Software

Developer productivity, y'all. It is a three TRILLION dollar opportunity, per the stripe report.

Eng managers and directors, we have got to stop asking for "more headcount" and start treating this like the systems problem that it is. https://t.co/XJ0CkFdgiO


If you are getting barely more than 50% productivity out of your very expensive engineers, I can pretty much guarantee you cannot hire your way out of this resourcing issue. 😐

(the stripe report is here:

Say you've got a strategic initiative that 3 engineers to build and support it. Well, they're going to be swimming in the same muddy pipeline as everyone else at ~50%, so you're actually gotta source, hire and train 6, er make that 7 (gonna need another manager too now)...

...which actually understates the problem, because each person you add also adds friction and overhead to the system. Communication, coordination all get harder and processes get more complex and elaborate, etc.

So we could hire 7 people, or we could patch up our sociotechnical system to lose say only 25% productivity to tech debt, instead of 42%? 🤔

By my calculations, that would reclaim 3 engineers worth of capacity given a team of just 17-18 people.
🚨 🦮 Seven ways to test for accessibility using only what is already in browser developer tools of Chromium browsers https://t.co/C7kdbigHGE

@MSEdgeDev @EdgeDevTools @ChromiumDev
#tools #accessibility #browsers
Also, a thread: 👇🏼


Issues pane, powered by @webhintio, listing accessibility issues with explanations why these are problems, links to more info and direct links to the tools where to fix the problem.
https://t.co/4K5RynHhbg


The inspect element overlay showing accessibility relevant information of the element, including contrast information, ARIA name, role and if it can be focused via keyboard.


Colour picker with contrast information offering colours that are AA/AAA compliant. You can also see compliant colours indicated by a line on the colour patch.
Note: the current algorithm fails to take font weight into consideration, that's why there will be a new one.


Vision deficit ("colour blindness") emulation. You can see what your product looks like for different visitors.
https://t.co/bxj1vySCAb

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?