41–50 of 164 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Loads fast, except for the PDFs which load quite slowly
Have to download the file, then load it on the client. Not sure you can make it much faster.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> health insurance rarely pays for what they do, balance bill you several thousands of dollars every time you have a regular check up for an incurable health issue, and it often requires legal notices and lots of lost work hours on the phone with debt collectors, insurance, hospitals Despite what the news will tell you, most SW engineers don't deal with this. In over a decade of working, with lots of interactions wit…
> Despite what the news will tell you, most SW engineers don't deal with this. In over a decade of working, with lots of interactions with the medical system, not one of these has manifested for me nor for my friends. I'm a software engineer, and I dealt with this multiple times a year until I joined a big corp. In all my years of startup life it was the norm to constantly battle the system and have several thousand…
(Either that or understand your insurance better).
Why is this eating up NSF money / taxpayer money?! Megacaps like Google and Facebook are reaping tons of value from arXiv, i.e. (1) easy access to non-industry peer attention through a respected pre-print publisher, (2) major incentive to their employees and key component to performance review cycle, ... Google itself has out-published most universities in conferences like NeurIPS for the past few years. For Google a…
Seems a reasonable use of NSF money to me, to promote sciences by creating a common infrastructure for organizing the world's library of preprints. It's infrastructure of a sorts, and civil government is the ideal party to fund civil infrastructure. (Isn't it?) Not random FAANG's, and I don't see why they'd want to anyway—what they'd get out of it. FAANG's aren't charities; anything they do that looks philanthropic i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Despite what the news will tell you, most SW engineers don't deal with this. In over a decade of working, with lots of interactions with the medical system, not one of these has manifested for me nor for my friends. I'm a software engineer, and I dealt with this multiple times a year until I joined a big corp. In all my years of startup life it was the norm to constantly battle the system and have several thousand…
I mean this with the utmost sincerity: Get better insurance. Or work in a company with good contracts with insurance companies. Like probably any Fortune 500 company. (Either that or understand your insurance better).
Back when I was a contractor I was on $850/month insurance and they paid for almost nothing. Deductible was $6K and even after that they paid for almost nothing.
Maybe $1600/month+ insurance would pay for something, but then it's questionable whether it's a good deal.
None of the marketplace plans covered the only couple of medical institutions in my area I trusted to give me a life-saving medical implant for a condition not well understood.
$10M seems way too much - if it's per year. Call me paranoid, but that kind of money invites the ESG crowd.
Why is this eating up NSF money / taxpayer money?! Megacaps like Google and Facebook are reaping tons of value from arXiv, i.e. (1) easy access to non-industry peer attention through a respected pre-print publisher, (2) major incentive to their employees and key component to performance review cycle, ... Google itself has out-published most universities in conferences like NeurIPS for the past few years. For Google a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My philosophy is that if people want to spend (waste) time on closed journals more power to them. Potentially when fields were small and niche this aggregation of topics might be useful. Today in modern search and computerized tools, the question is: why do we need them? There's nothing in academia that I feel is more of a racket than this scheme. I feel that _everything_ should be published and that natural discussi…
Would/could you apply this same argument to books?
If you're talking about monographs/etc then that's a different beast.
> arXiv was founded in 1991 by then-Los Alamos National Laboratory physicist Paul Ginsparg, Ph.D. ’81, prior to his return to Cornell in 2001. I had no idea arXiv was that old. I honestly only heard of it and started using it less than 10 years ago.
High-energy theory ~1992
Other physics theory ~1994
Physics experiment ~1996
Math ~2000
CS ~2008
Some disciplines flipped nearly overnight, while others took several years of slow growth before posting to the arXiv become the default.
Why is this eating up NSF money / taxpayer money?! Megacaps like Google and Facebook are reaping tons of value from arXiv, i.e. (1) easy access to non-industry peer attention through a respected pre-print publisher, (2) major incentive to their employees and key component to performance review cycle, ... Google itself has out-published most universities in conferences like NeurIPS for the past few years. For Google a…
arXiv is a great resource. At least in my field (Programming Languages, but I imagine it applies to most if not all of Computer Science) it seems like most papers are on arXiv. I see no reason to not make papers free. Most things cost money because either they're material themselves, or cost money/material to produce which needs to be somehow recouped. But papers cost almost $0 to distribute and are created with gran…
My philosophy is that if people want to spend (waste) time on closed journals more power to them. Potentially when fields were small and niche this aggregation of topics might be useful. Today in modern search and computerized tools, the question is: why do we need them? There's nothing in academia that I feel is more of a racket than this scheme. I feel that _everything_ should be published and that natural discussi…
Google Scholar is a good example of how bad the tools are. Its recommendations are apparently based on things like the papers you publish, the papers you cite, and the papers that cite your work, which sounds superficially reasonable. That worked well enough when I was doing my PhD within the boundaries of an established academic field. But when I started doing more interdisciplinary work, the recommendations quickly turned into garbage. A better recommendation system would understand that there is a field I work in, an upstream field I take ideas from, a downstream field I contribute to, and several fields further downstream that use the work I contributed to.