Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ArXiv receives $10M for upgrades

news.cornell.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 164 posts

Re: ArXiv receives $10M for upgrades

#51

Post by lazide »

solusn wrote: post #33
yoshuaw wrote: post #15

Oh that’s great to hear! I really like arXiv and am glad it’s getting more funding! I hope this will enable arXiv to fix some of the long-time issues it has, including the way identity and attribution are handled. For example: the current system assumes people’s names do not change [1], which in particular negatively affects trans authors. This seems like it could be fixed if they had the bandwidth to, and I hope the…

It much more negatively affects women who choose to or are compelled by societal expectations to take their husband's surname.

They just keep their maiden name for science and it seems to work fine?

Re: ArXiv receives $10M for upgrades

#52

Post by coding123 »

dheera wrote: post #14
tpmx wrote: post #11

$10M seems way too much - if it's per year. Call me paranoid, but that kind of money invites the ESG crowd.

Eh, inflation has happened, and taxes, medical bills, and real estate are insane these days. So much so that you can't live a "normal" life of the standards of 20 years ago with less than $500K+ in salary. (At normal "middle class" modest levels of life hat's $250K after taxes, $200K after medical expenses, $150K after rent, $100K after food, $50K after transportation, $25K after food ...) Sounds outrageous but most…

you did food twice?

Re: ArXiv receives $10M for upgrades

#53

Post by bfung »

jessriedel wrote: post #48
jxf wrote: post #6

> 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.

Different disciplines began regularly posting their papers to the arXiv at different times. The order was (very) roughly 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.

Advertisements masquerading as science ~2016 (2023 for sure)

Re: ArXiv receives $10M for upgrades

#54

Post by elashri »

Some people are angry that arXiv which is probably the most important repository of science are getting public funding because big tech companies are using it to publish their work, and they should fund that from their deep buckets. Are you aware of the consequences of what you are suggesting?

If you are funding something, you have some authority over what you are funding. Directly or even indirectly (If you don't follow our suggestions, we might revisit our financial contribution). So you want to put the place that should be open and independent under the thump of corporations that does not always have the same goals as the benefit of the science and public interest?

Re: ArXiv receives $10M for upgrades

#56

Post by elashri »

lazide wrote: post #51
solusn wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It much more negatively affects women who choose to or are compelled by societal expectations to take their husband's surname.

They just keep their maiden name for science and it seems to work fine?

The standard convention in citation is to follow the format:

FI, MI, Last. For instance, if an individual changes their last name from Davidson to Mitchell, the change would manifest as follows:

Suppose an author named Susan Thomas Davidson (S.T. Davidson) decides to change her last name, becoming Susan Thomas Mitchell. The citation would then be updated to (S.T. Mitchell).

This alteration retains the consistent impact as the last name, serving as the clear identifier, undergoes the change."

Re: ArXiv receives $10M for upgrades

#57

Post by toasted-subs »

open592 wrote: post #34
WanderPanda wrote: post #30

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.

Compression algorithms supported by the browser.

Re: ArXiv receives $10M for upgrades

#58

Post by gerdesj »

elashri wrote: post #54

Some people are angry that arXiv which is probably the most important repository of science are getting public funding because big tech companies are using it to publish their work, and they should fund that from their deep buckets. Are you aware of the consequences of what you are suggesting? If you are funding something, you have some authority over what you are funding. Directly or even indirectly (If you don't fo…

Open Source is ... open source.

There is nothing wrong with chucking money at Archive to help with costs, provided that money does not come with menaces. The basic idea is that if you profit in some way from an open repository of ... something then why not contribute to it? If enough people/orgs contribute then we are all good. Otherwise, if the org behind the project is an individual doing it as a hobby and they can't afford to continue then they might need support.

In the end Archive and co have costs attached. You don't have to contribute but it might be nice if you did.

Re: ArXiv receives $10M for upgrades

#59

Post by codetrotter »

choppaface wrote: post #41
open592 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have to download the file, then load it on the client. Not sure you can make it much faster.

If the pdfs were served by some of the megacaps who posts tons of papers (e.g. Google or Facebook) then it would be an order of magnitude faster. And said megacaps would end up spending peanuts relative to the value they get from arXiv.

It’s better that ArXiv stays not relying on Google, Fb or any other tech giant.

What I would like to see instead is first-party support for BitTorrent and magnet links.

Re: ArXiv receives $10M for upgrades

#60

Post by BeetleB »

dheera wrote: post #44
BeetleB wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

> Get better insurance 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 medi…

That sucks. I can believe if you have a tough medical condition then there's no limit to how expensive life can be :-(

And yes, marketplace insurance is poor. I get paid a fraction of $500K and the deductible for the whole family is under $4K. Max out of pocket is about $5K, but we never hit it. I don't pay any premiums. If I were single, it would be much cheaper - I mostly pay for the dependents. Big companies negotiate good deals, and they'll often have employees who will act as your advocate for weird billing problems. Insurance companies don't want to upset a big client.

Sad fact of life in the US that one of the reasons people cling to soul sucking jobs is this - even when they have enough money to retire (but still too young for Medicare).

Post reply on HN