jampekka

43 ms·

871.
by jampekka 2y ago
> By paying around €180 to €5000 (approximately US$197 - $5472), a person can have their name listed as the author of research paper, without having to painstakingly do research and write the results. That's quite a bargain compared
872.
by jampekka 2y ago
3+ papers requirement is the norm in many/most fields in Finland at least. Leads to lots of papers, which is probably not a good thing.
873.
by jampekka 2y ago
In my editor experience the assistance is minimal at best. Editors (almost all upaid) assess suitability of manuscripts, find the reviewers and handle all communication.
874.
by jampekka 2y ago
For reviewers they are usually least bad, but still bad. For example Manuscript Central still requires pop-ups and can be more or less impossible to use with mobile devices. It also has separate login for all journals and password rules tha
875.
by jampekka 2y ago
Worse is better.
876.
by jampekka 2y ago
It's quite sad that application interoperability requires parsing bitmaps instead of exchanging structured information. Feels like a devastating failure in how we do computing.
877.
by jampekka 2y ago
There are multiple "accredited organizations". Most seem to be copyright trolls that now get a semi-official status in law enforcement. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/trusted-fl...
878.
by jampekka 2y ago
This is done via academic credentials, mostly by publishing in the same field. I don't think there are any major technical challenges in publishing or peer review. It's not complicated at all. The problems are sociological.
879.
by jampekka 2y ago
I see no need for that. There are no problems with verifiying identities of reviewers.
880.
by jampekka 2y ago
> It's why MIT ended their Elsevier contract, and why many other R1s are following suit. I think focusing on Elsevier is/was a mistake. All the publishers are running the exact same racket. Even non-profits like IEEE. It's
881.
by jampekka 2y ago
It it's public domain copies can hosted by anyone.
882.
by jampekka 2y ago
Peer review and editing is done free by academics. Publishers "facilitate" this by having horrible unusable sofware platforms from the 90's for this. These are actually worse than nothing, as review would be a lot easier to o
883.
by jampekka 2y ago
Also being able to count number of letters of a word is not required for language capability in the Chomskian sense at least.
884.
by jampekka 2y ago
The poverty of the stimulus (POS) argument is that "evolutionary pre-training" in the form (recursive) grammar is fundamentally required and can not be inferred from the stimulus. The argument is based on multiple questionable ass
885.
by jampekka 2y ago
That's diabolical. But it's not certain if even that's correct. Depends on how the comma should be interpreted.
886.
by jampekka 2y ago
It doesn't have answers for the last two and I think the number 16 is wrong (the circle is encircling the right corner). Also 25 doesn't fit on the line. Would be interested to see what share of population would get all of those c
887.
by jampekka 2y ago
Indeed, they could be hacking e.g. book publishers.
888.
by jampekka 2y ago
IE had over 50% market share for over 10 years. It was likely a major factor for Windows holding the desktop OS monopoly.
889.
by jampekka 2y ago
There's no consensus on the definition of what language is. Chomskian linguistics does posit that human language is based on (innate) recursive grammars (narrow language faculty hypothesis), but this has always been a contentious quest
890.
by jampekka 2y ago
> There are no non-human species that have been found to use language for the Chomskian definition of language (using a finite set of symbols to represent an infinite number of communicable meanings) It's far from clear whether huma
891.
by jampekka 2y ago
Something like this? https://search.acousticobservatory.org/
892.
by jampekka 2y ago
To clarify: I didn't mean a model that would "translate" animal sounds to some representation of language or meaning. I meant a model that would capture statistical regularities in animal sounds and perhaps be able to link th
893.
by jampekka 2y ago
A predictive/generative model of animal "vocalizations" would be almost trivial to do with current speech or music generation models. And those could be conditioned with contextual information easily.
894.
by jampekka 2y ago
A major reason was that there was a dogma that language is uniquely human phenomenon. It was already part of the hugely Decartes' philosophy of mind and got a strong revival with Chomskian linguistics and the "cognitive revolution
895.
by jampekka 2y ago
Doctests are indeed a great format for documentation. They are automatically checked for currentness/correctness, aren't ambiguous like natural language and are close to the implementation. But I have the feeling that doctests are
896.
by jampekka 2y ago
Many of us "autists" may be of the opinion that the code IS the documentation and describing that in ambiguous natural language for some unspecified audience is just not very useful (and can be actively harmful). Use the source lu
897.
by jampekka 2y ago
There's been surprisingly little discussion about the DSA. The brussels corporate lobbyists really earned their salaries with that one.
898.
by jampekka 2y ago
I'd guess using typed arrays or even normal arrays wouldn't slow the code much, and the slowdown will be probably a small constant factor. If the JIT detects the array as homogenous it will compile it to low level array access. JS
899.
by jampekka 2y ago
For extremely simple scripts maybe. I get around 70 ms difference in startup time. $ time python3 -c "print('Hello world')" Hello world real 0m0.017s $ time node -e "console.log('Hello world')&
900.
by jampekka 2y ago
Books are not part of history?

More ›