We used to have them until several years ago they were deliberately removed. Their roots were destroying the roads and sidewalks, as well as infiltrating the underground infrastructure.
PaintedSnail
joined 1 year ago
How can I make sure that the citations are real and actually useful? Citations-cartels are already a thing.
I'm thinking that citations in papers can be actual links (akin to hyperlinks) to the location in the cited paper itself. This way it can be automatically verified that there are no citation loops, that citations reference current revisions, that the papers cited have not been retracted or otherwise discredited, and following citation trails becomes much easier. Would that help the citation-carcel issue, you think?
How can the review process be ported to that approach without losing the independence of the reviews? They are supposed to be anonymous and not affiliated with the authors in any way?
How important is anonymity in reviews? My thought process is going the opposite way: by linking reviews and comments on papers to the person/institution making it, it encourages them to be more responsible with their words and may indicate potential biases with regards to institution affiliations.
How can the amount of articles be reduced? Currently, you’re forced to publish as much as possible, published articles in “good” journals are your currency as a reseacher.
Here I'm also thinking the exact opposite: the issue isn't the numbers of papers, it's how the papers are organized that's the problem. We actually want MORE papers for the reasons hinted at here: important papers are going unpublished because they are (for lack of a better word) uninteresting. A null result is not an invalid result, and its important to get that data out there. By having journals gate-keep the data that gets released, we are doing the scientific community a disservice.
Of course, more papers increases the number of junk papers published, but that's where having the papers available openly and having citations linked electronically comes in. The data can be fed in to large data mining algorithms for meta analysis, indexing and searching, and categorization. Plus, if it later turns out that a paper is junk, any papers that cite it (and any papers that cite those, and so on) can all be flagged for review or just automatically retracted.
Thoughts?
I know little of the ins-and-outs of scientific publishing, but that didn't stop me from having a dumb thought: could the fediverse be a potential solution? Each university or research group could host their own instance of some software specifically for publishing papers, papers can cross-link citations to papers on other instances, people can make comments across instances that are tied to their own identities from their home instance, paper revisions can be tracked easily and bad citations spotted when a paper is updated or retracted, that kind of thing. The currency then becomes the reputation of the organizations and individuals, and this opens up a ton of data for automated analysis. I just don't know enough to know what problems would arise.
Yeah, the side quests are rather unimaginative in their tasks. For the most part they're not worth doing unless you want a bit more of a dive into the world lore. (A few give unique rewards, though.) Even some story quests are "player does menial chores for good karma with the locals because the devs need to pad things out a bit."
Shadowbringers is worth it, though. It's my personal favorite story arc. Endwalker, the one after, is my second favorite.
Come to FFXIV! We have decent stories, a voluntary PvP arena with multiple modes, and cat girls!
The metrics are the only important part! How else are we supposed to know how good the line is unless we constantly stress test the line by collecting data? Your ability to use the line is not a useful metric, so we don't worry about that.
We know when you lie. We can see uptime stats.
Basically, yes, though I think they have special hydraulic pullers, too. I forget the exact name. They have to take special measures if the day is too cold.
According to Practical Engineering, tracks are no longer given a gap. The gap causes premature wear and excess noise. Instead, they lay the track under tension, and weld the joins between sections.
There is still a limit on how much heat they can handle before buckling, of course. I just thought that was a neat innovation.
And now you compare the Republicans to some natural force, as if they are inevitable and inescapable. Gravity has no will, no plan. It just is. Republicans have a will and a plan. Getting mad at the Democrats for not being good enough to stop that is akin to victim blaming. The Republicans should never have gone down this road in the first place.
Do you blame the thief, or do you blame the homeowner for not having better locks? Who do you hold accountable?
We're not talking about a diseased animal, we're talking about people who are making conscious decisions knowing what the results will be. I can and so absolutely blame people for that.
Your metaphor insinuates that Republicans are unable to control their actions. If that were the case, that's all the more reason to vote and get them out of positions of power.
view more: next ›
I would suggest doing so anyway. If they come across a firearm by happenstance then they at least won't panic and will know what to do to be safe.