the years as a system admin taught me that you can identify the influential contributors because they were the only people whose accounts were not immediately shut off when the management identified a bus factor.

and now i have a name for the phenomena; thank you.

The Linux kernel would maintain a list of the latest Intel microcode versions for each CPU family, which is based on the data from the Intel microcode GitHub repository. In turn this list would need to be kept updated with new Linux kernel releases and as Intel pushes out new CPU microcode files.

Sounds like that would be outdated for everyone without a rolling distro.

One suggestion I'd like to see as a differentiator from the Science subreddit... The subreddit really seemed humorless to a degree where it felt like the mods were joyless scholars with giant sticks in a really uncomfortable place (What? Like the back of a Volkswagen?)

I get the need for standards on post quality, I just hope there isn't a heavy hand on comment quality.

It might be a good idea to make explicit rulings on some of the borderline sources.

If it were me, I would ban ScienceAlert, for example. "A Physicist Reveals Why You Should Run in The Rain" or "NASA Reveals Spooky Eyes in Space, And They're Staring Straight at You." They have a lot of good articles, too, but some of it is clearly just stuff for clicks. Psypost is also a little dubious. Maybe if it's something a scientist in that field would ever read and take seriously, including reliable journalism sources that are talking about science, then it's good, but if it would be viewed as pop-science clickbait, then we need to talk about it.

These are just ideas. I'm just saying that clarifying by name some of the things near the border, maybe after checking with the community, might be good.

All posts must be peer reviewed

There's a joke in here about recruiting Lemmy expert shitposters to peer-review post drafts themselves (as opposed to the scientific paper they link to), but I need somebody to suggest better phrasing.

Must be because of what i posted.

instead of the article being scrutenized (and educating people on how to detect pseudoscience) the post got removed.

At least i got a nice reply showing what was someone's reason for doubting the scientific process of that publisher.. before it got moderated.

Maybe it's possible to use a flags of some sort, to indicate that, even though it's a scientific publication and was peer reviewed, that this Lemmy community thinks it's a bad piece. (but not by up/downvote as a downvote means it goes to the end of the pile, and the education effect is lost)

Like, i want to put this article under your attention, so that i get an idea of what others think about it bmjpublichealth.bmj.com/conten…
But i'm afraid to post it, because of the possible backlash(i.e. moderation and maybe banning?)