Używasz przestarzałej przeglądarki. Może ona nieprawidłowo wyświetlać tę lub inne strony. Powinieneś zaktualizować przeglądarkę lub użyć alternatywnej przeglądarki.
💀 HorrorcowJFG / Jean-Francois Gariepy / jfgariepyneuro / The French Pervert / The Public Space - Warski's Abusive Ex-BF, Racist Streamer, Failed Academic, Potato Masher, Kristi Winter's BFF, Kero Defender
The RCMP has a notoriously bad track record, especially with missing women cases. Still though, cold case murders have been solved decades later even when the crimes themselves were committed long before DNA evidence and digital forensics. He might act like a smug fuck on the Internet, but he knows he is not in the clear until he's in the ground himself. Every knock on the door of the whack shack, every white Explorer/Taurus driving down the road, every phone call from an unknown number...that could be it. Finally caught. He will be looking over his shoulder for the rest of his sad, lonely, miserable life. I don't think JF believes in an afterlife, but personally I don't fancy his odds.
JF Gariépy recently posted on X that 'one of the most important predictions of The Revolutionary Phenotype' has 'just been proven.' He’s known for making sweeping claims, but his grasp of the molecular biology in the papers he cites is not strong. The short answer is no. Gariépy has misunderstood and conflated very specific scientific terms. In effect, he’s doing science backwards: starting from the assumption that his “scientific theory” is correct, then reaching for anything that might appear to support it, while misreading fundamental concepts in molecular biology to try do so.
A very detailed breakdown of his post and the papers is available here for anyone who wants to go deeper:
When we get into molecular biology, we’re dealing with a hard science, it's not something you can hand-wave your way through easily. His approach is to present papers as though they say what he wishes they said, counting on the fact that most people won’t read or fully understand them.
Gariépy’s book does not hold up as a scientific work, and it certainly doesn’t come close to meeting the high bar scientists require for a scientific theory. If you see someone promoting as if it's as such, it’s most likely either Gariépy himself (through one of his alternate accounts) or a member of his audience. Gariépy has openly expressed disappointment in his own followers, who sometimes send him links that he rightly identifies as nonsensical. When you try to live-action roleplay as a scientific genius but haven’t mastered the basics where your ideas intersect with rigorous science, you end up attracting people who are unfamiliar with the actual science, get dazzled by science-y words and invented jargon, and accept what you say because it sounds impressive or they fall for the appeal of authority seeing PhD.
For those curious about JF's academic bona fides, check out @Peace Through Power's post here. His CV is pretty thin and as far as I can tell he exited formal academia after being fired from Duke (which never gave him any funding FYI) in 2015, after which he became an Internet Person full time.
His extremely autistic "You can't fire me, I quit" break-up letter with Duke, which he posted on Facebook, makes for fun reading:
This week, I resigned from my position at Duke University with no intent to solicit employment in state-funded academic research positions in any foreseeable future. Many reasons have motivated this choice, starting with personal ones: I will soon be a father and want to be spending time with my son at home.
Other reasons have to do with research academia itself. Throughout the years, I have been discovering more and more of the inner workings of academia and how modern scientific research is done and I have acquired a certain degree of discouragement in face of what appears to be an abandonment by my research community of the search for knowledge. I found scientists to be more preoccupied by their own survival in a very competitive research environment than by the development of a true understanding of the world.
By creating a highly-competitive environment that relies on the selection of researchers based on their "scientific productivity," as it is referred to, we have populated the scientific community with what I like to call "chickens with no head," that is, researchers who can produce multiple scientific articles per year, none of which with any particularly important impact on our understanding of the world. Because of this, science is moving forward similarly to how a headless chicken walks, with no perceivable goal. This issue reveals itself in a series of noxious conditions that are affecting me and my colleagues: a high number of scientific articles are published with fraudulent data, due to the pressures of the "publish or perish" system, making it impossible to know if a recent discovery is true or not. The fact that the peer-review system does not care about looking at the data is not in any way reassuring about this concern. Furthermore, a large portion of the time of a scientist is spent on frivolous endeavors such as submitting a grant request to 5-10 agencies in the hope that one of them will accept. Finally, our scientific publication system has become so corrupted that it is almost impossible to get a scientific article published in an important journal without talking one-on-one with the editor before submitting the article.
Some of my best friends at Duke have told me that I sounded "bitter" when I expressed these concerns. I assure you that I am not and that I am writing these lines with the nonchalance and bliss of a man who has found other ways to be happy and to satisfy his own scientific curiosity, ways that do not involve the costly administrative war of attrition for state money that modern scientists are condemned to engage in. My friends have also pointed out that I should not be "discouraged" by the difficulties faced as a scientist, that I should continue to "fight." Again, they are wrong; discouragements due to failures have never kept me down. I have never been afraid of failures and of retrying, and retrying again; my scientific successes are what discouraged me, because I know how they were obtained.
My most important scientific articles were accepted in major journals because the editors had a favorable prejudice toward me or my co-authors; because I was making sure that I had a discussion with them before I submitted; or because the reviewers they chose happened to be close colleagues. No doubt the articles contained very good findings—I wouldn't have spent years of my life on them if they didn't. However, the real criteria that systematically led to publication, as opposed to the dozens of other journals where they were rejected, was the kind of prejudices described above. The scientific publication system portrays itself as a strict system for the evaluation of the importance of individual scientific contributions to knowledge, but anyone who has participated to this system and became good at it knows that the true factors that influence the publication of a scientific work have to do with social networking and, in many cases, straight-out corruption. Most of this "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" system operates without wrongful intentions from anyone involved. In fact, I am certain that most people who contribute to it are well-intended people who end up obtaining power here or there in the scientific system and use this power to favor scientists who they genuinely think are good. However, the end result is the same, no matter what the intention is: a corrupt system where favoritism is the norm. A system that I have benefited from for long enough. It is not surprising that such systems develop given human nature and considering that the publishing of just one article in a major journal means that a researcher can claim his share of a multi-billion dollar flow of money coming from the government or private foundations for his/her future work. No matter what one thinks of this system (I've heard everything from "It's terrible" to "It's totally fine"), the fact is that I do not have the energy to be a part of it for the rest of my life. I can work 12 hours a day, I can work on weekends, I can work at night, I can handle high-stress environments and I thrive in competition. I could sell a life vest to someone living in the Sahara Desert. Call me at 3 AM and tell me that an animal's life is in danger and I'll be dressed for surgery in less than 15 minutes. However, nothing in this world can exhaust me as much as the personal conviction that my work is not noble.
Of course, this does not mean that I will abandon all of my activities related to the search or dissemination of knowledge. I will still teach my courses in Biology and Artificial Intelligence at the University of the People. I will still publish my book, The Revolutionary Phenotype, which contains an important novel theory on the emergence of life. My wish is that this new theory will be taken for what it is and evaluated publicly by whoever wants to comment on it, not by two or three reviewers hiding behind anonymity. Euclid's geometry stood on its own, because of the truths it contained, and his books have survived all scientific systems that have existed for the last few thousand years, remaining perhaps still today the most concentrated series of useful truths ever gathered in a single place. Are there many people on this planet who remember who was Euclid's employer or where he graduated from? No.
Because it does not matter when considering the validity of his statements. I hope a similar thing happens with my theory, and that, someday, someone may think of my idea for what it is, without caring about the University I'm from or whether I'm a doctor or not. In any case, I want to make sure that whatever remains of it in a thousand year will be what it deserves in and of itself, not some superficial hype artificially generated by the leveraging of my own social network, trivially deployed in the race forward of a continuous flow of scientists bound to participate to this burlesque and meaningless operation in order to obtain attention, funding and even made-up fame, patiently built from within the administrative institutions controlled by those who succeeded in doing the same a decade or two before. An operation that not only ends up turning young scientists into slaves but perverts the very pursuit of truth that it claims to undertake. Unfortunately, my experience with the subjective way in which scientists evaluate discoveries in the traditional scientific publication system indicates that it is not an appropriate vessel for my theory to obtain the objective treatment it deserves. As Eliphas Levy once wrote, only temporarily do we get to judge truth; in the end, truth will judge us all.
I will still, also, publish the Season 2 of NEURO.tv, for which we have gathered amazing guests. I will still go talk science and have fun with the Drunken Peasants. And I will still spend my days trying to prove the Goldbach conjecture, although you probably won't ever hear about it because I probably won't succeed. In fact, my leave will likely give me more time to concentrate on these important activities. The reality is that throughout the years, my attention has drifted away from research academia, because I found other ways to satisfy my scientific curiosity that seemed more appealing and more genuine to me.
There is a general rejection of these alternative paths to knowledge dissemination in academia, but I have grown out of caring about it. Selling knowledge and prestige are the bread and butter of universities, so we should not be surprised to see the main recipients of the flow of money coming from well-wishing parents and governmental funding agencies dismiss the validity of other, less socially costly paths to knowledge dissemination.
This reminds me of an event which vastly contributed to my discouragement about academia, and which I think illustrates the vacuity with which certain editors of scientific journals treat the review of scientific works that may have taken years to perform. I was in a scientific meeting in Switzerland a couple of years ago and I was having a discussion with the editor of one of the two most important scientific journals in the world. He was asking me and my PI about different young scientists to know what we thought about them. He did not seem so concerned about the quality of their work or the insight they provided on the world. He was asking about their reputation. I remember a question that he asked very seriously but that was hilarious to me:
"And David Eagleman, I saw his book, is he a good one?"
The editor later proceeded to explain to us why he was inquiring about the reputation of these scientists:
"I'm asking to make sure that I accept articles from reputable people. Because you see, at ******, we want to do real science, not Richard-Dawkins-type science."
It is hard to express how many mental facepalms I have experienced in my head when he completed that sentence. A swirl of facepalms, a googol of facepalms +1, an embedded infinity of facepalms. I remember discreetly shedding some tears for an hour that night at the conference's bar, not because that man was unjustifiably mean to one of the most intelligent scientists in the world, but because I had come to the realization that our system of scientific publication is governed by people who have no idea what knowledge is.
I want to thank all the academics I have been interacting with in my career; especially those from Duke and the Université de Montréal. Academia is a weird thing; it is populated with very intelligent, motivated and brilliant people, who are operating in a system that is simply defective to the point of impeding on the very ability of these individuals to engage in a true search for knowledge. In this sense, I am leaving research academia for the same reason that I joined it 12 years ago: in search for a better way to satisfy my hunger for a scientific understanding of the world.
Spring is the ideal time for insemination. That's because women are generally incapable of true love. They love a man because they need to find a home and not go homeless, and a lot of those rent rotations happen in the spring.
As the despair of rent renewal and economic tightness sets in and the trees begin to bud, the human female begins to soften up. She starts simulating and acting like a being capable of love with the goal of capturing a provider male.
Thus, males who have had poor success dating in the past should try again by synchronizing their search with this season in order to successfully capture an insemination target.
@Trump_Advocat said:
Do you think Mama JF will return to you in Spring, I think she must be in her mid 30's now, so she may only have one breeding season left in her? @JFGariepy said:
I'm looking for other women mostly. @Trump_Advocat said:
Has Mama JF lost her breeding rights with you? @JFGariepy said:
More or less yes, certainly lost sperm exclusivity. Now my policy remains full insemination at all time.
Nice to get a good look at how inconceivably ghetto the workmanship is on that "Minecraft wall."
A reminder that, per eyewitness testimony and video, Lightbulb Head spent years sleeping on an air mattress with no sheet. This is the first actual bed he's ever been known to own.
His remarks over the years suggest Elora only stayed with him to avoid homelessness. His end of the bargain was getting babies out of her. Right after the second baby is born, she vanishes.
Now he's got a tweet up encouraging incels to coerce homeless women into survival sex.
The doughnuts are sweet, the coffee is fresh and hot, they're leaning back in the seat with their shoes up on their desk. Naptime? You betcha it''s naptime.
