nrev

5 ms·

1.
by nrev 6y ago
It’s interesting to see this as #1 just now. It’s a little tangential, I’ve actually been doing a lot of researching on the recent changes to Search and fallout that users have reported + some further research into my own anecdotal change i
2.
by nrev 6y ago
:’( need to lengthen urls but can’t bc on mobile :’’(
3.
by nrev 6y ago
Well, as for non-‘vanity journals’, I would say the anonymous peer review process. Similarly, the publishing process after the initial anon peer review process can be generative + a healthy back and forth revision process. Plus it has the p
4.
by nrev 6y ago
I initially read this headline as an Onion-article style joke. That said, I don’t disagree with some of the ideas set forth here. I mean, I think this same sort of thing is the reason I regularly find myself reading journal articles and thi
5.
by nrev 7y ago
Haha. I mean, you’re obviously not wrong. No less, having written a few articles for publication, it is extremely helpful to have this kind of verification and correction to even the smallest details, and I imagine that is true for article&
6.
by nrev 7y ago
Had to level the playing field post Cambridge Analytica and the Netflix documentary about it, ha. Tldr; the documentary basically concludes very blatantly C.A. (and Facebook) manipulated elections worldwide. though I won’t be touching that&
7.
by nrev 7y ago
There’s so much energy waste in electric cars from the greater number of times energy must be transferred specifically where it’s changing form. I don’t really see how this can be minimized or changed enough to make and electric car world (
8.
by nrev 8y ago
I personally think this is a great sort of walk-through of the pitfalls of the strictly DSM-based approach. I don’t necessarily see it as something that particularly reflects this guy. If he wanted to create a new diagnostic approach to inc
9.
by nrev 8y ago
I don’t use Twitter much, but I have noticed the reverse is true on Facebook.