Diogo Melo
LightNews LightNews
damelo.net
Diogo Melo
@damelo.net
970 followers 1.8K following 100 posts
Evolutionary biologist, programmer, crappy musician. Assistant professor at the University of São Paulo. Formerly a postdoc at Princeton EEB. damelo.net
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Diogo Melo
marisakabas.bsky.social
anyway i hope the students left inspired
November 15, 2025 at 4:56 AM
Reposted by Diogo Melo
cbo.bsky.social
"What James Watson got wrong about DNA"

By the great Sohini Ramachandran (@sramach.bsky.social) and your boy for The Boston Globe (@bostonglobe.com).

www.bostonglobe.com/2025/11/14/o...
What James Watson got wrong about DNA - The Boston Globe
The science he helped pioneer consistently undermines his view that genes determine everything about us.
www.bostonglobe.com
November 14, 2025 at 4:50 PM
Reposted by Diogo Melo
jbakcoleman.bsky.social
A corollary of this is that something can be normally distributed in the parameters but not necessarily in the data. Using the right link functions and model, you’d be surprised how much the normal distribution can do.
statsepi.bsky.social Darren Dahly @statsepi.bsky.social · 1d
Confusing stats language:

The "linear" is linear regression means "linear in the parameters".

It does not mean "can only fit straight lines", and things like polynomials and splines can be included in linear models.

online.stat.psu.edu/stat501/less...

1/2
The word "linear" in "multiple linear regression" refers to the fact that the model is linear in the parameters, . This simply means that each parameter multiplies an x-variable, while the regression function is a sum of these "parameter times x-variable" terms. Each x-variable can be a predictor variable or a transformation of predictor variables (such as the square of a predictor variable or two predictor variables multiplied together). Allowing non-linear transformation of predictor variables like this enables the multiple linear regression model to represent non-linear relationships between the response variable and the predictor variables. We'll explore predictor transformations further in Lesson 9. Note that even represents a "parameter times x-variable" term if you think of the x-variable that is multiplied by as being the constant function "1." https://online.stat.psu.edu/stat501/lesson/5/5.3
November 14, 2025 at 1:29 PM
Reposted by Diogo Melo
simondonner.bsky.social
For years, people argued that there's no point in taking climate action unless China is onboard. I'm at a COP30 event where Chinese government officials and renewable industry reps are outlining the fast-paced renewable energy transition and long-term carbon neutrality plan. The story has flipped.
November 13, 2025 at 5:03 PM
Reposted by Diogo Melo
epicurodepedra.bsky.social
O método fascista consiste em ficar gritando "pega ladrão" bem alto enquanto rouba.
November 13, 2025 at 3:13 PM
Reposted by Diogo Melo
greally.bsky.social
A handy translation guide for non-academic speakers.
November 13, 2025 at 2:19 PM
Reposted by Diogo Melo
dieworkwear.bsky.social
we need a department of kerning
The Department of War's seal hangs on a wall. The kerning appears to be off.
November 13, 2025 at 2:54 AM
Reposted by Diogo Melo
tante.tldr.nettime.org.ap.brid.gy
Please do not use "AI-slop" to illustrate your articles or presentations.
If you need images and have none just use one of the free stock image sites. It's not harder and doesn't make you look like a dumbass.
November 12, 2025 at 5:08 PM
Reposted by Diogo Melo
harmitmalik.bsky.social
Are you an early-stage graduate student (2nd or 3rd year) or early-stage postdoc based in the US or Canada, working primarily in Drosophila? Would you like to help improve the experience of all trainees working in Drosophila research? If so, read on.

(Please repost to reach a broad audience.)
November 12, 2025 at 4:49 AM
Reposted by Diogo Melo
hansonmark.bsky.social
That's why funders hold the power here. Funders can decide to pay for services or not. They can decide to support authors who publish in for-profit journals, or not. They can decide to pay APCs in for-profit journals, or not.

9/n
November 11, 2025 at 11:52 AM
Reposted by Diogo Melo
hansonmark.bsky.social
More fundamentally, every active scientist has been brought up in a system where The Drain was already normalized.

This system hasn't always existed. For-profit publishers are a recent invention. Their value proposition has always been awful, and now they are actively eroding trust in science.

5/n
2. Stopping the drain Back in the 1950s, when for-profit journal publishing was just getting going, British scientific leaders predicted that ‘the moment commercial gain began to dominate this field, the welfare of the scientific community would suffer’ (1). They were right – and it is past time that we acted. The first step we must take is to recognize the seriousness of the problems that scientific publishing’s engagement with for-profit publishing have become.
November 11, 2025 at 11:52 AM
Reposted by Diogo Melo
hansonmark.bsky.social
For-profit journals are supposed to improve research quality, yet they're perversely incentivized to churn out whatever they can monetize. This was happening before AI (see Strain: bit.ly/43gJPUM), and AI will make it worse.

It's insane that we volunteer our time to help them do so.

4/n
November 11, 2025 at 11:52 AM
Reposted by Diogo Melo
hansonmark.bsky.social
Scientists operate on principles of good faith. But this is just ridiculous. If you, dear reader, take nothing else away from The Drain paper, it is that publishers cannot be invited to the table any longer.

They can participate and carve a space, but they can't be part of shaping policy.

3/n
November 11, 2025 at 11:52 AM
Reposted by Diogo Melo
hansonmark.bsky.social
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision. A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
November 11, 2025 at 11:52 AM
Reposted by Diogo Melo
samandfuzzy.com
Fortunately, I already figured out the plots of the next several Toy Story films
ΤΟΥ STORY The purpose of a toy is to bring happiness to a child ΤΟΥ STORY 2 Toys must accept that their child will someday outgrow them ΤΟΥ STORY 3 Toys can find new purpose with a new child ΤΟΥ STORY 4 Toys can abandon children, create their own purpose, and pursue relationships with other toys ΤΟΥ STORY 5 Toys can learn how to create new toys without the involvement of a child ΤΟΥ STORY 6 Toys construct a secret, self sustaining society parallel to human civilization ΤΟΥ STORY 7 The great human/toy wars begin THOUSANDS OF YEARS LATER Cars 1-3
November 12, 2025 at 1:27 AM
Reposted by Diogo Melo
paolocrosetto.bsky.social
What is the most profitable industry in the world, this side of the law? Not oil, not IT, not pharma.

It's *scientific publishing*.

We call this the Drain of Scientific Publishing.

Paper: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Background: doi.org/10.1162/qss_...

Thread @markhanson.fediscience.org.ap.brid.gy 👇
November 12, 2025 at 10:31 AM
Reposted by Diogo Melo
jayvanbavel.bsky.social
Real change needs to be at the journals + hiring/promotion committees, where quality, rigor & impact needs to take priority over sheer volume.

This means search committees should ask for a couple of key papers and actually read them. And paper mills/journals should stop churning out garbage.
November 11, 2025 at 7:27 PM
Reposted by Diogo Melo
jayvanbavel.bsky.social
The race to churn out papers is a systemic problem.

Early career scholars are desperate to get more papers to compete in the academic job market. This can make it hard for faculty mentors hard to reduce their output unless they shrink their lab (which removes opportunities from next generation).
November 11, 2025 at 7:26 PM
Reposted by Diogo Melo
jbakcoleman.bsky.social
This is a great read and very relevant to anyone measuring outcomes at base-line and following exposure. Really lucid treatment of the pitfalls of change-scores and some easy-enough recommendations.
October 15, 2025 at 7:29 AM
Reposted by Diogo Melo
rockbellwin.bsky.social
amigues a empresa que eu trabalho tá precisando de um videomaker editor pra um freela pra esse fim de ano (as gravações são no extremo leste de sp)! se tiverem interesse ou souberem de alguém me chamem que eu encaminho o contato
November 11, 2025 at 3:24 PM
Reposted by Diogo Melo
nohayhandle.bsky.social
o primeiro robô a reproduzir com toda perfeição uma pessoa bêbada indo conhecer os pais da pessoa com quem namora
antongerashchenko.bsky.social Anton Gerashchenko @antongerashchenko.bsky.social · 3d
Russia presented its human-like AI robot. It fell down as it walked onto the stage.
November 11, 2025 at 9:46 PM
Reposted by Diogo Melo
bcmerchant.bsky.social
Filling out a banking form that asks for my occupation, and in what I am choosing to consider as a sign of the times, "journalist" is not a selectable option, but "cryptocurrency" is
November 10, 2025 at 9:53 PM
Reposted by Diogo Melo
leyawn.bsky.social
ms paint of a twitter post by Joyce Carol Oates that reads: "So curious that the richest man in the world doesn't have a favorite shape. Does he even know any shapes?" separate twitter post by an account named "shapesthetics": "The triangle is a shape with three sides and three corners, one of the most basic yet beautiful shapes in Euclidean geometry." reply to this post by Elon Musk: "Great shape:
November 10, 2025 at 7:45 PM
Reposted by Diogo Melo
annieknk.bsky.social
This term is so social media-brained. Coined by people who can't imagine themselves without an audience, or that anyone could genuinely want to pass time in any other form than Stare at Phone
robpalk.bsky.social Rob Palk @robpalk.bsky.social · 5d
Oh fuck off
November 10, 2025 at 11:34 AM
Reposted by Diogo Melo
matthewcobb.bsky.social
Good to see someone involved in the field describing the techbro fantasies as “bullshit”. But note the link between this nonsense and eugenicist ideas from Altman. These people are rich, stupid and influential, which = dangerous.
November 10, 2025 at 7:53 AM