3 ms·
I share the doubts with the OP. Your comments are ad hominem. It doesn't matter whether OP has the "necessary knowledge" (read: pedigree and institutional back
by tomrod 4y ago
I share the doubts with the OP.
Your comments are ad hominem. It doesn't matter whether OP has the "necessary knowledge" (read: pedigree and institutional background) to bring up clear confounders.
The mere naming of them is sufficient to make the link. The names of colors have evolved -- no word for Orange for a long time! Perhaps "Yellow" was used instead.
Further, without public access, there is no great way for the OP to respond directly.
Thus, the onus is on the paper's distribution. But you don't call that out. Why?
- beowulfey 4y agoIt is freely available on ArXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.04702 https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.04702
- tomrod 4y agoCan you confirm this is the post-publication print, not a pre-publication? Not that the content is changed substantially -- but it could have.
- beowulfey 4y agoWell, the paper was released on July 29th, and the last revision (v2) of the ArXiv document was July 27th, so without going through the whole thing twice I would strongly suspect they are the same.