I have used crowd collected data for research. You have to curate each picture carefully and cannot trust labels, there are many erroneous identifications.
Maybe if you have access to pre-curated you can trust it a bit, but if you are a researcher and use images from these websites without curation you are already doing it wrong...
AI altered images doesn't change things too much, it probably just increases the numbers of errors that already existed...
Pseudoscience is claiming something as fact when you have no evidence. Portraying an hypothesis as fact is an example of pseudoscience.
It isn't the hypothesis that makes things scientific, it is the testing and falsification of the hypothesis that makes it scientific. No such has been done.
Until you have the evidence and results, all you have is a sophisticated guess.
I absolutely can dismiss every unproven hypothesis as pseudoscience if it is used as if it was a proven hypothesis. You should too.
According to the article there exists no evidence that it actually synthesis energy from the radiation. The title is a flat out lie. It is a hypothesis with zero evidence.
Also, it claims melanin that makes it dark, like our skin, is part of the synthesis, but an easier explanation is that it is there to protect against radiation, just like how melanin in our skin protects us from solar radiation.
The whole idea of "radio-synthesis" is pseudoscientific bullshit with nothing to back it up.
In our reverse world, the more hyperbolic the title is the less worthwhile content the article contains. Use this to filter out content that can be safely (ironically) ignored.
Too late. This is already the case, I don't know of a single EV that wasn't buggy on release and still buggy a year or two afterwards as the manufacturer hunts bugs in a leisurely pace. It already is like in the gaming industry. Don't buy an EV that isn't at least one year old on the market or you will become their free of charge beta tester...