crazy_horse

I went to Google Scholar and googled for articles from the top journal this year, picked a random article, the entire text is available.

https://en.x-mol.com/paper/article/1429645420640583680

I know that is a single article and I get your larger point. It's very much a field by field issue, in my field (I've been told it isn't a real science by HN, so no thanks sharing), I can't imagine me or the profs I know taking people seriously if they aren't making their stff available.

It sounds like to me to advance this debate, people could provide examples of journals that are regularly cited and their papers aren't easily accessible in some way.

I work in the social sciences where we have lots of overlap with other social sciences, stats, and data science, machine learning.

Those are the domains I know and in those domains anyone born after 1970 knows that if they want to distribute their work they put it on their site or a number of free archives.

Could you provide examples?

It's hard to overstate how tired the entire argument is.

Doctorow feels like tweetstorms are an acceptable means of getting communication across (yikes), so maybe some things are just unbridgable.

HN sounds like cranks about this. In my podunk region 2 school I have access to all the journals I want, always have as a student. I rarely need that because it's easier to Google Scholar and then just grab the paper off of someone's site, which pretty mch everyone does these days.

Some of the commenters here could have written a phd in the last decade about this topic but I don't think it's the massive stopper of progress that people think it is.

Billions of dollars! Wish we didn't have to bust my ass to get a portion of that, but keep beating up on the academics.

I feel like you are providing an example.

I came to this thread to read a thread about videogame stories. Imagine my surprise (wait, this is HN), when the first thing that I see is your comment about videogames that isn't really about videogames it's a way for you to sell your book, which you admit you are shameless about.

But I just wanted to reed about videogames. If you were more subtle, if you knew how tll me a story without telling me that you are telling a story, then it's not wasting my time and I can get what I came for as well as what you want me to learn.

Why work for Bezos up until 2020 if you care?

Kind of feel bad for my ambiguity....I bought it to make VR content with.

It's very hit or miss.

I have a Vive from 2016. I purchased the Q2 with the intent of doing dev work with it and I expected it to be a big improvement. I mean I read reviews like yours and I saw what it was capable of.

Don't get me wrong, it's a big deal that it is now standalone (the Vive very much feels lke the matrix), but the visual fidelity hadn't incresed prceptibly in that time (as far as I can tell) and the headset itself is still too heavy.

The higher sales are interesting but it's at like 6 million units worldwide? The most popular consoles were over a hundred million. We're not even into a console that everyone knows about but only that weird dude has like the Xbox yet.

I can see a future where these googles are 3x the resolution, even cheaper, and as light as actual glasses, and that day we'll be at mass market, probably before it.

But if you made me work in VR for any length of time at all as of now, I'll quit because the quality is not there yet. I'd rather play the latest games on cheap but incredible monitors anyway.

Give it six weeks. You might still be entralled. I sold mine, I don't want to build anything for that guy.

I know Vince Gilligan did his research prior to Breaking Bad but st strikes me how on the nose it was. BB came out in 2008 and must have been in production a few years earlier but the increase in actual purity pretty much matches the show coming out.

I also recall the show depicting meth users having all those problems - Jesse is paranoid the missionaries are bikers, there's that guy digging a hole in his front yard, Spooe and his head, etc

Seems like the drug was fucking people up way prior to the last few years in fiction.

I don't want to say of course it is, but of course it is.

It's an environment full of smart and hungry and competitive people. There are politics, yes, but you can damn well choose to avoid them, especially if you offer value.

Nobody in any industry presents all of the warts and difficulties of getting to a solution. If you wanted to hear about six years of failed experiments, I've got lots of time, but I feel like you don't want to hear it and neither do the people reading and writing research papers.

You'll find that outside of the superstar schools, the smaller schools (certain depts) are staffed with brilliant people. They'll tell you about the nuances of academia if you're a normal person but they're not going to show up on HN where people say what they do is worthless, so people get warped views of what the majority of it is.

I have worked in academia. I can't think of a single prof like that in my department. They exist, but that's not why people choose to spend decades of their life in poor paying jobs.

Kyrie Irving - flat-earther, anti-vaxxer. To some people both are ridiculous positions. Conspiracy thoerists tend to groupp together and tend to pick up additional beliefs

There was a secret military installation. The conspiracy was that they were doing creepy deepy stuff there, only a fraction of which was true.

But conspiracy theorists count that as a win.

Why do you use biased language? Yes,there were lots of people in the media that dealt with Epstein. Epstein's arrest was public in what 2008 or 2009, you could find information about it on wikipedia in 2015. Now there have been multiple documentaries about it. That's why Gates acting all dumb about it years later is dumb.

The conspiracy theorists that point at everything as child abuse weren't right just because they found one of the most public instances of it. It doesn't make their other dozens of claims true.

What kind of comments does HN select for?

Do you really expect useful discussion when you say stuff like this? Normal academia isn't like that.

What evidence suggests that the entire party is being investigated? Who is hiding that?

This is gross. It's gross because you're right, there are a lot of things that politcians get a pass on. That's not okay.

But you are making ridiculous absurd statements. No, not everyone in the other part is getting investigated. No, not anyone who claimed interference is getting threatened. How would that be possible if up until the last week (and going well into the future), we're discussing this stuff?

This absurd hyperbole ruins whatever valid points you have because you look like the kind of commenter that HN was supposedly above, but for some reason dang decided to bump this explicitly political bs (with the expected political comments) to the front page. We didn't even try to get a better source than fox news?

If you care about this stuff (and you should), you need to disconnect it from political stuff. You're jumping in bed with people that lie.

He was removed when he wouldn't just give up power like a normal loser, but he sure as hell prodded them for 4 years and it sure as hell got him elected.

Thanks for the feedback, I knew there was more to it bu it's interesting that's a later interpretation (presumably the didn't imagine the executive would have so much power).

The point I was making with the theorist stuff is this song falls right into prime Q, the government is killing us territory. If YouTube, years after giving those people platforms and building them up has decided that doesn't fit their values or the values of their advertisers that's how it works.

I'm just not sure that conservatives really want to die on this hill with Kyrie Irving and the flat earthers.

Read the conspiracy subreddit and get back with us.

No reason to see it like this, it's not helpful and I'd argue is probably just wrong.

I get depressed (I take SSRIs, too) because we live in 2021 and I see people taking advantage of each other on a daily basis, killing each other over things that don't matter. I have a front row seat to watching some of the world's greatest minds argue over semantics. That's the real world. That's realistic.

Whether you take that to nihilism is something else. I know the pit of despair depression you are talking about but it is a spectrum.

Censorship is government action.

Private companies that allow you to reach millions of people are offering you the ability to use their service. It's not censorship when they don't allow you to use their service (and until today, they haven't stopped much), it's terms of service.

If I invite you to my house and you eat my dog's food, I have the right to tell you to leave. The movement wouldn't be what it is today without YT, so this censorship stuff is too much.

Really devalues the meaning of censorship.

Social media platforms broadcasting your views around the world and moderating some of them was not censorship.

What's going to actually convince people? I don't think it's six months of watching YT videos. Is that one extra video really going to change things?

It seems more like blind contrarianism.

Interesting that he notes Wallace there.

Wallace was a lonely dude. I still really admire the things he said about leadership and his fiction is truly unique....loneliness is a theme throughout. I think I related to him partially because of that. I recently came across an article about him where he basically couldn't accept that fixing his loneliness wasn't someone else' job.

This seems relevant but it also bothered me and I think he should be cited in the future with this huge caveat in mind. If he wasn't a famous author he would've been known as a creepy stalker.

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/05/th...

https://twitter.com/marykarrlit/status/992735594060148737

It is unconstitutional in the sense that the Constitution is a practical document that has the main purpose of establishing a United States.

The laws that make federalism unworkable ended up being unconstitutional over time because the SC has a vested interest in maintaining federalism.

What's the alternative? I'll tell you scientists are dying for good information (probably really are). IN a lot of authoritarian countries it does not exist, for obvious reasons. Freedom House, yeah, it has an agenda, but at the end of the day it's that data or none at all. It is the job of people using the data, not posting comments about it to do a more thorough review than it has connections, therefore, not useful.

Do you have a specific issue with the ratings? We have to ask these questions and do. We adjust our priors accordingly.

Instead, I think we should focus more on improving the majority of lives of the people in the US than focusing on countries abroad.

Do me a favor and search for "human rights" on that page. That's kind of the whole point for a lot of but not all of these contributors. Oh, and if you care about the US - the US scores are declining.

It'll get worse.

This is a YC site so it's a dick thing to say but look at every YC company that got big. They might start out with nice ideas and bloviate a lot about bullshit (Reddit still has the tagline about staying for empathy - lol).

But every single one of them gets worse after cashing out. They do not give a shit. It's always been about the money. If it weren't they'd have enough pride to make better software then they do and more than that enough pride to actually fix things instead of bloviating.

Their business model ensures that they will continue to add features to a bloated and overmarketed project to people that don't know better. We better off? It's possible. But I know that watching their interactions here over the last past decade, when I had the chance, I made sure we didn't use Gitlab for some unis you've heard of and going forward I always will.

I'll never get over their data loss incident. Not so much that it happened (though they should have had enough expertise around to make sure it never happened), but the reaction to it like it was just a funny mistake. I realized then that these guys haven't been in real small companies that could go bankrupt if they lose a chunk of data or they had and didn't realize how careless they were.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13542587