HN user
Solution of linear system is one of those problems that you should program yourself to learn the methods. But there are so many edge cases and details that you have to rely on libraries for production.
And don’t die.
Fascinating the contribution of Uruguay to astronomy!
E.g. Kuiper Belt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julio_%C3%81ngel_Fern%C3%A1nde...
There is not much left of communism in China besides the name,
After living 2 years in China and visiting the country every year for the last 12 years, I disagree with you.
Many not minor things in China are still very aligned with communism.
How the university system works, land property, production in unpopulated areas and small towns, participation of the government in industry, etc…
Very true! Unfortunately that is not present at all in the Apple series of Foundation…
Beautiful Torres García painting: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am%C3%A9rica_Invertida
I saw this recently on some congress abstracts. I think it is just AI generated content. References look real and don’t exist.
I don’t know what any of these symbols mean…
Is it from the article? Didn’t found that…
You may email the editors concerning typos, factual errors, or with general comments at: apollolunarsurfacejournal@gmail.com
Why nasa use gmail?
Live stream of Peregrine Falcon nest at the top of Sagrada Familia in Barcelona:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=TMRRsBh5GDI
I spend too much time on this...
True. But that opens the game of writing a paper “with the style of” someone known and get accepted. Its a gamble game… for authors and reviewers.
Still many many journals don’t apply double blind reviews. There is no advantage of don’t doing it. There is no extra work in doing it.
So I assume that it is not done to keep outsiders out of your garden…
Honestly, I don’t find any other reason to don’t apply it.
I work in academia and have over 70 papers published. I Agree with most ideas in the article. Another dimension not covered is what I called “author engineering”. Many times it is very difficult to “get into” a new field if you don’t have an author known by the editors. I work in applied math (very transversal) and happen to me often to be rejected because “I don’t belong to the area”. PhD students usually don’t suffer from this as the supervisor is already a member of the community. But if not, try to bring a collaborator that is known in the area. This is usually done in conferences by chatting with people.
This kind of animal glues have some nice properties than “white glue” miss, e.g. you can remove it with heat. Traditional woodworkers still use it. You can buy it today: https://www.fine-tools.com/oberfl.html
I second those recommendations and add one: The Craft of Scientific Writing by M. Alley.
It is not clear if there is a evolutionary benefit for human to be conscious. Although here we are…
If weight is a factor (and, of course, if you can afford it) the new iPad Pro is an amazing option. Without a cover is the lightest device I’ve seen.
I’m building a travisher [1]. Both wooden body and iron.
I found it amazing the importance of the small details in old woodworking tools and how toolmakers solve problems and improve tools. Particularly in very simple tools.
Back in the nineties… I set the country of my ICQ account randomly. It was Vanuatu. One day someone contacts me and ask “are you from Vanuatu?”, so I checked and she was from Vanuatu! So I tell her the truth: “I’m not. Are you?” And she answers “No, I’m from Venezuela, I missed my country by one in the config... Later I searched for people on Vanuatu and we two are the only ones“ :)
Please read "Story of your life" by Ted Chiang. A beautiful story that involves a discussion of Newtonian and Hamiltonian formulations. One of the best stories I have read.
I completely agree with you. We can mess it up, but at geological time scale, life will regenerate. Evolution is very robust. Although, we live at human timescale. It will be a pity for our sons and daughters…
Is this for free account? Or also for paid corporate accounts?
Well, you could put incentives to make replication attractive. Give credit for replication. Give money to the researchers doing the replication/review. Today we pay an average of 2000€ per article, reviewers get 0€ and the editorial keeps all for putting a pdf online. I would say there is margin there to invest in improving the review process.
It's fundamentally impossible because when you publish the topics are going to be in a way or another niche enough that you know all of the people working on those topics
Even if you know the people in the field and you can guess the authors, double blind does not hurt. Actually, I don’t see any downside of double blind.
Actually, names are very often used to let you out of the field if you are not part of the usual family…
Good that the study is done and it gets published. But the result is obvious and well known. The terrible part is that the solution is also well known (double blind process) but there is no interest to implement it in most journals. Editors have to defend their field from outsiders… editorials do not care as long as money keeps flowing in…
The proposed model explains slowdown in terms of production technologies and materials, in particular microelectronics. But, is it fair a model that does not take into account the effect of internet during the last 20 years? Not only the hardware have changed the production landscape, but also the networks.
The conclusions of the work might be correct, but in my opinion the model seems incomplete to draw conclusions from it.
Very nice!
I thought this would be about the Atari game with paddles… lol
A statement like this one requires a proper reference. Otherwise looks like anti vaccine ad.
How many academic scientists end up being buried in managing science, particularly seeking funding?
Today?? 100% of successful scientists.
Off topic. Could you recommend an ide to work with c++?