robertwalsh0

I guarantee someone with a checkmark impersonating AOC would be defended by Elon in the name of ‘free speech’

“All big letters but it isn’t no acronym” - DOOM, _Ballskin_

But it's not clever. It's just annoying.

To each their own, sure, but yikes there are so many more things in the world to be annoyed by right now.

This article made me think of a Chinese film called ‘The Wolf Warrior 2’ where the benevolent Chinese save an unnamed African country. I believe it’s one of the highest grossing Chinese films ever and might shed some light on Chinese attitudes toward Africa/Africans.

It feels like ‘Starship Troopers’ level propaganda and is completely straight faced.

The villagers constantly thank the Chinese hero for his over-the-tip acts of bravery, they celebrate when he wins local drinking contests, etc.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Warrior_2

Thanks, I really appreciate it :D

Making academic journals more accessible is a problem that I’ve been working on the last few years with my project, Scholastica. We provide software that allows journals to manage their entire toolchain from peer-review to publication.

Homepage

https://www.scholasticahq.com

Two journals that use our software: https://www.surveypractice.org (OA journal published by American Association for Public Opinion Research)

https://discreteanalysisjournal.com (arxiv overlay journal started by Fields Medal winner Tim Gowers)

Welp, the Senate did what they could to overturn this. Thanks House of Reps https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/16/611598361...

As a minority, this ‘let all the ideas run free in the marketplace of ideas’ sounds fun until the ideas are about your inferiority and suggested extermination.

Over at Scholastica (https://scholasticahq.com) we've been taking on this problem for the last few years. We allow journal editors to create, manage peer-review, and publish OA journals all in one place. Sir Tim Gowers, the Field's Medal winner, uses our platform for his journal Discrete Analysis (http://discreteanalysisjournal.com/) The journal Internet Mathematics recently came over to the platform after being on Taylor & Francis for years (https://blog.scholasticahq.com/post/internet-mathematics-pub...).

We think journals make a lot of sense and that the problem is that journals don't control the toolchain.

I notice there's a lot of interest on HN around this subject from time to time. If you work with a journal and want to get in touch or have questions feel free to write me at rwalsh [at] scholasticahq.com

Lots of Facebook election posts have been flagged and removed - I hope this one isn’t.

Zuck says that people are mad because people are sharing ideas that the other side doesn’t like but also defends FB’s actions in the German election: “We have been working to ensure the integrity of the German elections this weekend, from taking actions against thousands of fake accounts, to partnering with public authorities like the Federal Office for Information Security, to sharing security practices with the candidates and parties.”[1]

I’m very disappointed in Zuck’s intellectual honesty.

[1]https://gizmodo.com/facebook-deleted-tens-of-thousands-of-fa...

@dougmccune makes a great point that "with the right conditions a quality journal can be run incredibly cheaply." Discrete Analysis is prime example of this (and there are others), the editors have been able to run the journal on a small grant using Scholastica for peer review and publishing via the arXiv model. Full disclosure - I am a co-founder of Scholastica. I think the key here is that in order to make journal production cheaper it has to be _despecialized_. Journals have come to reply on corporate publishers because printing and early online publishing were too cumbersome for them to manage on their own. In turn publishers have built up levels of specialization for their role. But today, with existing technology and services, journals can assume a pared down publishing model that addresses their needs in a much more affordable way and allows them to retain control of content and its distribution.

I'm excited about the increasing frequency in which articles on this topic are showing up on HN. I believe that many of the problems in academic publishing can be remedied by giving the scholarly community affordable tools to manage and publish journals. After all, they are already writing and peer-reviewing the material themselves. Full disclosure: I'm a founder of a company called Scholastica (https://www.scholasticahq.com), a peer-review and publishing platform used by hundreds of journals across a variety of disciplines ranging from law to mathematics. Sir Timothy Gowers, the Fields Medal winner and Cambridge Mathematics prof, launched a high-quality ArXiv overlay journal on the platform about a year ago (http://discreteanalysisjournal.com/) which I think lends credence to the idea that the scholarly community can write, review, and publish work without relying on the current corporate publisher status quo.

These bite-sized video that show the real UI are a great idea. It seems obvious now in retrospect for them to execute something like this - I know so many iPhone shooters that will love this resource.

Is there any way to protect your browsing?

Congrats on the release!

He picked two examples that came from a time where UX/good graphic design didn't matter. They are still popular today because of their incumbent status.

I'd wager that neither application would be as popular if they came out today as our standards have been raised.

Shout out to Basecamp for getting attention for another one of their link-bait-y, contrarian articles though. They are so good at that and it keeps their name out there.

I prefer Foundation because I think the grid system is superior as suggested by the author and I think it's much easier to style in such a way that the site looks like your own. As many have pointed out, many 'Bootstrap' sites look like 'Bootstrap' sites. My biggest gripe about Foundation is that beyond Mad Mimi's Foundation 5 port there aren't as many high quality tools to use Angular with Foundation compared to all the Bootstrap Angular tools.

Why can't Apple just stick with what it's good at?

I remember Jobs talking about never making a larger phone. I really wonder if it was a case of him caring about "taste" over "giving people what they want."

There was some leaked Apple internal document where they said that people wanted larger phones. The post-Jobs Apple created larger phones to meet market demands.

One thing that always makes me giggle, though, is the fact that if you double tap the home button the screen slides down so you can reach the navigation bar at the top of the screen. If you have to provide a hardware solution like that, isn't it proof that the larger phone provides a worse user experience?

I'm excited about the smaller phone. My iPhone 6s is overly difficult to maneuver.

Full disclosure: I'm a founder of a company called Scholastica that provides software that helps journals peer-review and publish open-access content online. One of our journal clients, Discrete Analysis, is linked to in the NYT article.

It is incredibly obvious that journal content shouldn't cost as much as it does.

- Scholars write the content for free

- Scholars do the peer-review for free

- All the legacy publishers do is take the content and paywall PDF files

Can you believe it? Paywalling. PDFs. For billions.

Of course the publishers say they create immense value by typesetting said PDFs, but as technologists, we can clearly see that this is bunk.

There's a comment in this thread that mentions the manual work involved in taking Word files and getting them into PDFs, XML, etc. While that is an issue, which you could consider a technology problem, it definitely doesn't justify the incredible cost of journal content that has been created and peer-reviewed at no cost. Keep in mind that journal prices have risen much faster than the consumer price index since the 80s (1).

The future is very clear, academics do the work as they've always done and share the content with the public at a very low cost via the internet.

PS. If you want a peek into how the publishers see the whole Sci-Hub kerfuffle, check out this post from one of their industry blogs - the comment section is a doozy: http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2016/03/02/sci-hub-and-th...

1. https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/jtj2dzMfklULQipRZt_3xaLoFxU...

By and large, the academic publishing industry operates in such a way that it ignores the internet ever happened. The internet says, "Hey, you don't have 'Kant's Third Critique of Judgement in your inner-city school library. Here, let me tell you what it says" the academic publishing industry says "whoa- you're not at an institution that pays us money - you don't deserve to know what this says."

They try to make it seem like they do so much to push knowledge forward - but they take the paper you wrote in MSWord, take credit for the peer-review, then make it into a PDF and ask for your money.

The internet is going to destroy them and they are running scared. How long can you sustain a business that relies on paywalling PDF files?

Are there any other solutions for HN that let you vote? I've tried a couple iOS apps but they don't have voting.

I think as time goes on we'll find that journals are able to do more and more of the work themselves in such a way that disrupts the monopoly as we know it today. Journals and the academic community already perform the review process themselves (with little reward) and are finding that the "typesetting" and "dissemination" value-adds from publishers are things that they can do on their own as well.

On a large scale, initiatives like PLOS One (http://www.plosone.org/) are a great example of this. On a smaller scale, journals like Sociological Science (http://www.sociologicalscience.com/) & (http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/stanford-gsb-experience/news-his...) are also being successful managing the entire toolchain themselves.

While things seem dire now, I'm confident they'll get better. Scholars with status are increasingly throwing their weight behind Open Access initiatives. Tim Gowers, that droque mentioned in this thread, is evidence of this.

Disclaimer: I co-founded a startup in the space (http://www.scholasticahq.com) and Sociological Science uses our platform for managing their peer review process.

Was talking to my partner about this and she had a pretty clever take:

"Seems like a simple idea would simply be to change just the spelling of one seemingly insignificant name near the end of each version of the credits and then by actually watching the credits you'd know the leaker straight away."

"Of course, you'd leave the watermark on there so the leaker doesn't know how you caught them and thinks that the watermark is still the tracking mechanism."

You might want to add some more meta tags for images, twitter cards, etc. For those who are sharing this across social media. For instance, when I shared to FB it didn't pick up any of the metadata to show a snippet.

The type cover seems like a good thing in theory, but in practice feels very "tacked on." Especially in that you have to find a level surface (no pun intended) to rest the device on.

I haven't tried it yet, but there's this: http://scholarlymarkdown.com/

"Everyblock, as far as I understand it, was really an attempt to automate distribution of data and information provided by local authorities."

I was an EveryBlock user in Chicago for about a year and it was definitely more that a distribution of stats (although I think they may have started out that way originally). There was a very active social neighborhood based network where people talked about what was currently going on in the neighborhood.

As a screenhero and Slack user I'm excited to be able to experience one experience across both products. They're both best in class in my opinion.