Luca Visentin

[He/Him] PhD student in Complex Systems at the University of Turin.

I'm into #OpenScience, #DataStewardship and in general sharing knowledge with everyone in an inclusive and efficient manner.

I'm also a founder of the Open Science Community Torino.

My website: https://hedmad.eu/
Github: https://github.com/MrHedmad
Blog: https://blog.hedmad.eu/

Last Notes

2025-10-08 08:43:35 UTC

I call upon you, oh #OpenScience and #metascience and #complexsystems and #philosophy of #science tag readers:
I have a lot of money still to spend and my PhD is ending like, at the end of the month. Flood me with book recommendations that I can buy with free money!
https://cdn.masto.host/genomicsocial/media_attachments/files/115/337/653/573/294/496/original/fabba93cef0a14e8.mp4

2025-09-08 06:43:00 UTC

I'm considering migrating instanced mostly because I don't talk that much about genomics.
Any recommendations for #OpenScience, #DataStewardship, #archives and in general academic data management mixed with a bit of #philosophy maybe?

2024-10-14 07:11:41 UTC

- reply

My point is that you can't bring anecdotal evidence to prove a point. My own anecdotal evidence is there to show how stupid it is to prove a point by bringing just anecdotal evidence.
I used "toxic" as I thought it would be a good word to sum up what is a multiple-post-long piece, sorry if it came through as minimizing.
As I said before - I'm not arguing that what OP said is wrong, just that the evidence she is bringing to the table is weak.

2024-10-14 06:34:17 UTC

- reply

I was not saying that what she is saying is false, it's just that the proff she showed is anecdotal...

2024-10-14 06:15:46 UTC

- reply

I will seem like an asshole, but this comment is genuine. While this might wery well be true, providing anecdotal evidence to support the notion that every (or most) white cis men are like this, and then immediately saying "This is not a debate", or "White, cis men need not comment" sounds toxic to me.
As we are dealing with anecdotes, I tend to say yes to all of my friends, including female ones.
The argument might very well be sound, but it's being handled poorly.

2024-09-24 05:56:45 UTC

- reply

I agree. I don't have that harsh a stance on masking, however. Then again, I don't know many people (read: anyone) who still follows anti-covid regulations at all.
I'm probably wrong, but for healthy ppl I honestly think that masking makes sense in some places (like public transport), but I don't think I could bear wearing one all day...

2024-09-24 05:41:10 UTC

- reply

(I have four hours of sleep in me, so I'm not fit to argue, but here we go) I get it, I really do, but it's like the trolley problem: I could just wait for the inevitable (the better option, imo), or pull the lever and infect you myself.
Plus the argument "they all recovered" is flawed: you've proved (maybe) that they *do* have slightly damaged brains now. I feel like risk is ok to potentially make ppl better (drug trials), but it doesn't hold when you make them worse...

2024-09-23 14:57:58 UTC

- reply

"Hey, I want to infect you with a virus, and I think if you get this infection you'll get permanently dumber. You might also die, but probably not. Wanna take part? I'll give you fifty bucks...!"
Fuck, I thought Cave Jhonson was unethical.
Also note that the deposited study (they they link to) has no mention of this cognitive effect study. So I assume they did HARKing (even though they already list a bajillion aims in the study statement)?
Edit: this last point is false, see 👇

2024-09-23 13:13:30 UTC

- reply

Wait a minute what
"This was the first, and likely will be the only, Human Challenge study in which unvaccinated virus naive volunteers were inoculated with Wildtype SARS-CoV-2."
They inoculated an active virus in these unvaccinated people???

2024-08-29 15:33:26 UTC

Today I've read a great book by Sabina Leonelli: "The #philosophy of #openscience".
It's hard to summarise (I've just put it down), but it highlights how OS puts a lot of focus on the data as research objects while in some cases disregarding the human contribution, and in particular the importance of connections between humans, that went into it.
She argues that "commodifying" data is prone to capitalist exploitation, among many other concepts.
I think she has a hard, but meaningful, stance.