dmitriz

Can you use AI tools to covert Typst to Latex? That would remove the acceptance issue.

Indeed, that was my confusion, thanks!

v: 3 4 /a vector, i.e. a list of 2 atoms.

v+'v /v plus EACH v, i.e. (3+3;4+4).

6 8

How is for EACH working here? Adding v (a 2-vector) to each element gives a 2-vector, so why isn't the result a 2-vector of 2-vectors?

I can also tell from my own experience that an average doctor in Thailand's backwater is better than in the capital of Ireland.

Health care in Vietnam is not too bad, at least for the price.

Let us see...

My partner got what looked liked food poisoning when we arrived to Hue. Local hospital refused to take us, sent to a special hospital "for foreigners". She was put on a bed and kept waiting in pain for hours. The doctor didn't bother to do anything for her for hours, despite not too many other patients. We felt hungry, yet they refused to let us go. After several hours waiting and feeling more stomach pain from hunger, I said, we absolutely have to go and eat something. Yet the doctor told us to keep waiting, refusing to let us go. I started looking around for food and found a cafeteria on premises that was luckily still open (it was already late). After a verbal fight with the doctor, he finally allowed us to go to eat in that cafeteria. It was already late and dark and I had told the doctor, we would be leaving now unless he does something. After more verbal fights and repeated insistence, the doctor wrote a quick prescription without even checking and sent us to pay about USD 100! However, by the time he gave it to us, the hospital pharmacy was already closed. And no other pharmacy on the street would have that medicine. So we came back around midnight, with no medicine, wasted many hours, spent USD 100 on nothing.

Would I call it "not too bad"? Well, if it was any more serious, we would have to fear for our lives is all I can say.

I have just tried it in REPL and got this cryptic error:

    cljs.user=> (defmacro swap [x] (list (second x) (first x) (last x)))
    #'cljs.user/swap
    cljs.user=> (swap (1 + 2))
    Execution error (Error) at (<cljs repl>:1).
    1.call is not a function

Is there a way to simplify the `swap` function? E.g. in JavaScript it is just

    swap = (x,y,...rest) => [y,x,...rest]

Our goal is to make computer science topics more accessible to students through visually pleasing and accurate illustrations.

Any chance to change the green on black to something more accessible on the eyes?

It is waiting list, not a product.

Ha, sounds familiar. :)

I wonder for how long we'll be able to use Gmail before it follows the G+ road.

In fact, as are all journals from Free Journal Network https://freejournals.org/, of which SIGMA is a member.

Which is more headache for the applicant, fewer grants to award and less funds going to science proper.

Finally something useful they did -- helped the student :)

This was the case 30 years ago when publishing was expensive. Today this should be a button click in a fully automated system.

Which is not to say, societies don't benefit from the system -- they actually get a lot of $$ from it. The sad part is, they only get a small part from the much bigger $$$ going to publishers.

You are seriously giving authors too much credit.

Sure, how can we credit someone who did the research and prepared the paper in its publish-ready form :)

The vast majority of the journal papers require enormous amount of production editing

Absolutely! Such as introducing new errors by people with no subject understanding. :)

that's exactly why the EICs and societies sold those journals to publishers.

They are sold to them for the very simple reason: $$$ they get from it :)

Graphs do not fit the page ...

If any of these are not acceptable, the journal is perfectly correct to request changes from the author. Which I as author would prefer over introducing damages by people with no idea what my papers are about.

Having published over 50 research papers, I've never experienced any value from the journal's so-called typesetting. In fact, that "value" was typically strictly less than zero with all their newly introduced typos and misleading corrections by someone who has no idea about the subject. So why are forced to accept this kind of service and how does world science benefit from it?

Then mathematics must also be different. And physics. And many other areas. How come the journal costs are still as high there?

It is public information, how can they not know it?

... the current alternative, Open Access journals: they charge authors fees in the high 3-digit range to cover their costs.

Not the current alternative, just one of many and not the best one: https://gitlab.com/publishing-reform/discussion/issues/96

Calling the APC "the OA model" and conveniently forgetting to mention other options has been precisely the common publishers' rhetoric feeding deliberate public confusion in trying to identify OA with APC, which needless to say, helps their business objectives.

In fact, this was referring to one of them: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20641056

Because "services" by the likes of E are of no value to CS professors designing some of the much more advanced software. But they are sadly focusing on their own journals and not trying to help the other subjects.

Because ironically, and despite of all the good words, this is not what is typically rewarded by their universities.

How can you tell it is not been read?

It is already being tried with Plan S. But the problem is to choose the right alternative, of which the alternative pay-to-publish model isn't.

https://gitlab.com/publishing-reform/discussion/issues/86

What sort of value have they been creating?

Very true, this is precisely the problem. Editors don't leave E's journals' boards because it might hurt their vitae. Referees don't decline to work for E's journals (for free) because it might hurt their relations with editors. And authors often don't have much choice where to send their articles and might hurt their career by picking out-of-stream venues.

All of them use the same process.

All articles are already assured to get salvaged via services like LOCKSS, CLOCKSS, and Portico. All we need is to have them go bankrupt, preferably fully, so stories like that won't repeat: https://gitlab.com/publishing-reform/discussion/issues/22

This might help to understand E's "logic" :)

"Would you buy the world a drink?" - is there merit to Elsevier logic?

https://gitlab.com/publishing-reform/discussion/issues/104

Of course they won't do it as that would show the world the other 99% of their journals are in fact old rubbish. And they don't buy us drinks as we know...

https://gitlab.com/publishing-reform/discussion/issues/104