- tefkah parentWhat perspective change? Your brains splattered on the wall? While I am also grateful to be alive, I don't think it's that hard to imagine other people being in situations where they feel deeply unhappy about being born, and that that feeling really can't be dispelled with a simple "perspective change", unless you mean suicide.
- What are you talking about? No one’s writing their paper in HTML.
The problem is having the submissions be in TeX and converting that to HTML, when the only output has been PDF for so long.
The problem isn’t converting HTML to PDF, it’s making available a giant portion of TeX/pdf only papers in HTML.
If you’re arguing that maybe TeX then shouldn’t be the source format for papers then I agree, but other than Typst (which also isn’t perfect about HTML output yet) there aren’t that many widely accepted/used authoring formats for physics/math papers, which is what ArXiV primarily hosts.
- typst is great, but there are many many steps between “markdown isn’t sufficient” and reaching for typst.
1. typst only really has pdf output at the moment 2. so much less tooling available (linters, site builders, converters etc) 3. much less of a markup format, extremely tightly coupled to a specific tool (typst compiler)
again, love typst, but it has (atm) so much fewer applications
- > The real question isn't "does React solve problems?" It's "does React's complexity match the complexity of the problems most developers are actually solving?"
Kind of disrespectful to reply to valid criticism of your AI slop article with more AI slop. Write like a human being man, what’s the point?
- > These aren't edge cases. They're normal problems you hit building moderately complex apps
These aren’t real articles. They’re slopg diatribes generated by people who can’t even be bothered to communicate a thought.
I feel annoying for being this guy, but i think someone should point out the fact that it’s barely written by a human being. What’s the point in engaging with the point the “author” is trying to make when the author is Claude?
- i didn’t take the advice as “ask your doctor whether this is a good idea” (I also doubt the average GP’s ability to say anything useful about nutrition) but more as “keep your doctor in the loop of doing a weird diet and do regular check-ups for obvious markers like cholesterol”
i’d qualify eating 700 eggs as weird enough to warrant keeping your dr in the loop.
- Are you regularly dealing with people with compromised immune systems? If not, why isn’t just washing them good enough?
Semi-related: all the Americans I know who live here (in the Netherlands) tend to use way more aggressive cleaning products than me/other Europeans. specifically defaulting to bleach to clean surfaces rather than just soap and water. Always found that interesting, seems such overkill!
- that's an http 1.1 only limitation. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Server-sent...
- Disagree, as we also publish “failed” research, where authors reflect on their experiment, such that others may learn from it, and that the others may still gain something useful academically from this (citations, a publication).
One of our goal is to change the perception of and culture around failure in academia. Research/science is not just a steady upward trend of progress, it comes with a lot of trial and error. Academics’s success and job prospects however depend mostly on them publishing in high impact journals, which in turn only publish “interesting” aka positive results, which creates this very toxic publish-or-perish culture. Having an experiment fail is a natural part of doing science, but academic institutions punish you for not producing positive results. By providing a place to publish these failed experiments, at least it provides some relief for this problem. This is not real change however, that needs to happen at a much higher level, but that is one we do are not able to impact. Ideally our journal will not be necessary in the future, as we detail in our opening editorial: https://doi.org/10.36850/ed1
- I run a journal where we publish both “real” null results and experiments were something practical went wrong, so i have a few thoughts:
1. Ideally peer review would catch this. A badly setup study should be critiqued in peer review. Forcing scientists to first publish their methods before doing the experiment also helps, as it validates the experimental setup before hand.
I also think it’s worth publishing studies where a null result was reached due to some error in experimental setup or other factors, as long as it’s presented as such and reflected upon. This can still be valuable information for future experiments. Offering scientists social capital for that (an “official” publication, citations) might also incentivize scientists to publish the results as is, rather than making it appear as a “true” null result, or even as a non-null one (eg through p hacking).
2. While obviously possible, given the amount of effort scientists have to go through to raise funding for an experiment nowadays, i find it highly unlikely that people would go through this effort.
3. This is already possible and a problem. This is a problem of academic misconduct, has very little to do with null results.
The current publishing system is of course already set up to be gamed, so I understand your worries. But null results should be published, as they are just science. Even if someone were to “game” the system by publishing a ton of null results, those publications should be held to the same level of scrutiny as any other publication. If someone is extremely prolific in replicating existing studies and comes up with a ton of null results, that should be lauded and those papers should be published, no?
I do believe the entire idea of a researchers output only being recognized by being allowed to be published in a journal is terrible and should be abolished, but baby steps I guess.