Not that you're wrong but researchers are also deeply imperfect. They're rushed, they're given no time to actually improve their work, and the emphasis is entirely on 'good-enough' publications. The number of times I've been involved in a paper where the mentality wasn't "get it out the door, now" is.... zero times.
Plots often fail to clarify for the precise reason that clarification takes time and effort and those things are lacking in academia in spades. Are people intentionally hiding ugly details, definitely on occasion? But I don't think it's the primary source of such bad figures.
All that you said with a heavy dash of good data visualisation is more of a skill and an artform than many people realise.
I've had four decades of crunching numbers in a variety of Engineering, Geophysics, and science applications with a hefty amount of public consulting on a variety of applications and of the large population of those good at gathering and recording data perhaps only 20% had that extra talent for good visualisation to convey meaning without distortion.
There is a book called. "how to lie with statistics" by Huff that should probably be required reading for everyone. It's not very technical and a pretty quick read
I really enjoyed Storytelling with Data: A Data Visualization Guide for Business Professionals
by Cole Nussbaumer Knaflic. The author really breaks down the individual elements of good/bad visualizations using case studies with lots of actionable advice. Highly recommended.
When you measure it like that... something really tingles and puts it into perspective. That also shows how much progress we make with how little money. To put it in units I know:
I work on a team that operates ~the only climate research station in Greenland, the fastest melting piece of ice on earth. The total cost of our project is ~10e-7 of the money they lost. You could build, operate, and employ ~10,000,000 scientists at 1,050,000 climate research stations with that kind of money.
Let's just say our forecasts and climate projections would be pretty spot on with that sort of funding.
If you're a Linux user, "KDE Connect" is actually by far the best desktop interface for texting and more. It's changed how my phone and my laptop interact and I think might be my favorite open source project. You can use your laptop as a keyboard, reply to messages from any app that sends a notification, and so much more. The file sending functionality is also far better (and faster) than anything else I've used. It's everything open source software should be.
A bit late but I had completely forgotten about KDE Connect. Back when I last tried it, it did not filter out spam messages (though maybe Google Messages' spam filtering operates on its own layer and thus spam classifications are not reflected back in the OS SMS store, making it impossible for KDE Connect to know about them). Regardless, I get much less SMS spam these days, so maybe that'll be a viable option once more.
It is very neat for the price - the spectral resolution from Cesium Iodide is less than Sodium Iodide by more than half and it's a small crystal .. but it does pack a lot of fun into a small package.
For semi serious use I'd want to continuously download full spectra with a (?) 2 to five second window (subject to understanding how well it counts, subsamples, saturates) and pool those spectra with GPS data to build up NASVD type "typical background" fingerprints to differentiate against to boost outlying signals.
I'd like to see the gadget user groups pooling their data also.
First thoughts on browsing the manual is that spectra export is a UI interface driven one at a time operation so someone would want to get into the guts of that and determine how to continuosly transfer to a server | home PC | nearby phone to retransmit, etc.
This, of course, might be in the reddit forum or Telegram group.
I might get a few of these as Xmas presents for a few folk I know that work with the bigger geophysical survey toys to get some cross over happening.
I ran my 1999 Nissan Primera 2.0 turbo diesel on virgin vegtable oil for a couple of years (I had about 400L in the back when taking the channel ferry to to drive around Europe). It cost 0.40p/l instead of 1.20/l in the UK. Bought it from a farmer from an ad on eBay. No modification needed, but you need to have a couple of fuel filters and a tool to change it handy, in case you have a blockage (more common when first starting to run on oil). In winter add 5-10% petrol to keep the viscosity down. You can always add diesel to the tank without issue.
I think many 90s indirect-injection diesels can run vegtable oil without modification, but some ppl add a fuel heating system or a dual-fuel switchover system.
There were newspaper stories of ppl going into Tescos and filling their trollies with 5L bottles of vegtable oil, then going to the parking and filling their tanks. Later (virgin) vegetable oil became more expensive than diesel, used oil is a different story.
Bonus: when reversing, or at the lights with a breeze, you often notice an odour like fried chips. :)
It probably wasn't more common because it was some hassle with the fuel filters and potential damage to fuel pump (some are built better than others). The Nissan had a license-built Bosch design that was solid.
Perhaps you need to consider when you want to buy a switchover system from eBay: If caught, obviously by police with a nose for chips. They will take your car milage multiply that by the amount of fuel tax you did not pay, double it as punishment and give you a set fine while they are at it.
Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this vehicle was operated under illegal conditions for the entirety of that duration? What if it were imported? Used?
In my country the tax law has a reversed proof clause. Meaning, you are guilty until proven innocent. This clause is activated after you get caught, or even when you did not comply with administrative requirements. Other countries have similar clauses.
So in this case, if you have hard proof, meaning a proper administration, fuel tickets, etc. Which you all don't have, there is basically only a central milage database and ownership records that can hedge your damage.
1994 Toyota pickup with a Om617 swap. I bought a kit for the engine swap then did all the work to swap it.
I did nothing to handle the oil. It just works. You pour it in the tank and go. However, it doesn't work in the winter without a heater or additives.
It's not more common because a) mechanic diesels are old technology and means you'll be driving an old vehicle. b) WVO is a hit or miss in your area. Lots of restaurants will get paid for their old oil by recycling centers so most wont give it away. c) processing it is tough until you get a system in place
As well you can run on so many different fluids. Waste motor oil, waste transmission fluid, brake fluid, etc.
Motor oil burns more rapidly than diesel. You'll get more "power" but also less durability.
Burning motor oil happens when your turbo breaks down and puts all your oil via the air inlet to your engine. It's hard to stop that engine until all the oil is used.
You absolutely can and I have before. However, I blended it 70% WMO and 30% diesel. Used motor oil WILL carbon up everything. It's so full of ash that it'll pool up internally.
You need to used a centrifuge to pull out the carbon. Sounds intense but it's not.
You can pour it entirely in your tank without any filters but your fuel filters only go to about 10-30 which will not pull out the tar. Small amounts like that won't do any damage really.
The Caterpillar diesel engine manual says you can burn up to 5% used motor oil without affecting the warrantee. It does say to make sure you filter the used oil so as not to gunk up your fuel system.
For a large engine that produces many buckets of oil at each change, this is a good way to get rid of the stuff.
In Poland at least, people were doing it - mostly rural in their tractors - but just straight using cooking oil for your trucks&tractors is illegal - too much pollution.
Of course SAF is cleaned up to different standards. Also, SAF is not just cooking oil, they use various kinds of tech.
Running personal cars on cooking oil was legal in the UK up to a certain number of litres/year. I think it was more an issue of taxation, I'm not aware that it creates additional polution.
Sounds like an infrastructure problem if you need to go further than that just for work. But given you're French, vous êtes, selon toute probabilité, complètement d'acc.
Starbucks doesn't say "hey here's a free coffee", hand me the coffee, and then say I implicitly agreed to a 500 page lawyer-exploitable EULA by taking the coffee... and then later say "well, if you're enjoying that coffee you can give us $5 in cash instead.
Those are not equivalent and I wish people would quit pretending that they are equivalent. People "expect" things on the internet to be free because Meta and its ilk are saying they're free and then doing a myriad of shady things on the backend. Not because users are naive and entitled. Saying so does a disservice to the way the entire interaction takes place and the asymmetry that exists.
Money exchanged for goods is a very straightforward and honest thing. This is not.
While you're correct in the purest sense of what you say, this is an unfair realization of the exchange. It's very zoomed in to the micro level. The macro level is much more interesting.
It's not wanting free stuff. "Meta", and many many web services, literally scream "hey here's a free way to connect with your friends" or whatever their pitch is. And then operate in ways that violate the rights of the people they attract to use their service in the name of "more money" (note, more money because the reality of it is that Meta could easily offer privacy and still operate, just at lower profits). Offering a paid version, in the way that this does, is putting a bandaid on a bullet wound. It's holding you hostage and saying "you can use this the way we intend and we'll violate your privacy or you can pay for that to not happen".
When in reality the proper way to have such an exchange would be to say "Dear Users, the service we provide you costs $200 a year, however if you would like that to be free you can opt in to these incredibly hostile and violating contracts if you would like". But, we all know that no one would join that service because it's too honest about its exploitative nature and so the user-hostile nature of these companies goes on ad nauseam.
The crowd at a party changes a lot after the last metro because everyone left it is the sort of person to take the first metro in the morning, not because they have cars.
I understand this sentiment but it's extremely short sighted. Paying for news is about incentives. Much like Google having poor incentives to provide good unbiased search functionality based on the fact that their revenue comes from advertising, news work poorly aligns with advertising incentives also.
Whether you contribute to that or not is your choice.
One reason I subscribe to the New Yorker (beyond enjoying their content) is that they have legendarily high standards around fact-checking, which isn't something you can maintain unless you're paying people to do it. So I'd like to help them continue paying the people who do it.
Plots often fail to clarify for the precise reason that clarification takes time and effort and those things are lacking in academia in spades. Are people intentionally hiding ugly details, definitely on occasion? But I don't think it's the primary source of such bad figures.