MIT Ends Elsevier Negotiations • Hacker News Board

Re: MIT Ends Elsevier Negotiations

#221

Post by s0rce » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 4:05 AM UTC

czzr wrote: post #95

dfdz wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should not be getting down voted. I am an early career academic; there are some new non-profit open access journals that I would consider publishing in that cost ~$500 dollars to publish a paper. Everything is on arXix so I cannot justify the expense (perhaps if I was late in my career with lots of grant money I would help to support these journals..)

That’s interesting. I always thought that it was early career researchers who had to publish in journals to establish their reputations. Does it not work that way for you?

In some fields you can probably just put up preprints if they are important enough and get noticed, otherwise I assume the OP meant they are publishing in for profit not open access journals that cost less for the author (via charging everyone else).

Re: MIT Ends Elsevier Negotiations

#222

Post by c3534l » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 4:25 AM UTC

mehrdadn wrote: post #198

Tainnor wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally a tangent, but: the law of the excluded middle ("tertium non datur") doesn't state that "a and not a" is always invalid, it states that "a or not a" is always valid. This is a somewhat important distinction since there are logic systems (intuitionism) where "a or not a" is not a tautology, yet I don't know of any logic that accepts "a and not a".

I'm confused. Or maybe you're confusing AND with OR? How can "A and not A" ever be true, let alone tautologically so? Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

[this was misleading]

Re: MIT Ends Elsevier Negotiations

#223

Post by waheoo » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 4:49 AM UTC

majormajor wrote: post #163

JackFr wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At best, it introduces a large inefficiency, waste of resources and unnecessary busywork ("bullshit jobs" becomes relevant here) If the COVID-19 lockdown has taught us anything, it's that probably a full third of our economy is bullshit jobs. We're at best self-perpetuating economic 'nice-to-haves', at worst parasitic rent seekers, probably somewhere in between, whose real role is simply to distribute GDP more wide…

I don't really understand what COVID would tell us about "bullshit jobs." It tells us that restaurants and bars and concerts, etc, aren't "necessary." Duh? Leisure activity has never been necessary, but it's still something we enjoy and value. The existence of those leisure jobs and the venues they operates certainly adds value to my life.

A lot of businesses have used revenue loss to justify layoffs.

Re: MIT Ends Elsevier Negotiations

#224

Post by Doctor_Fegg » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 4:59 AM UTC

toshk wrote: post #177

ironmagma wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s roughly the same concept. Those people were hired for a reason, even if it wasn’t a fully rational one. Just as musicians are the quality of life improvers of society at large, so too are code janitors to an IT team.

The idea of bullshit jobs started a few years ago mostly based upon the idea that the people doing themselves felt like they were doing bullshit jobs, and therefore not feeling fullfilled.

Douglas Adams got there in the 80s with his Golgafrincham B Ark storyline.

Re: MIT Ends Elsevier Negotiations

#225

Post by mehrdadn » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 5:26 AM UTC

c3534l wrote: post #222

mehrdadn wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused. Or maybe you're confusing AND with OR? How can "A and not A" ever be true, let alone tautologically so? Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

[this was misleading]

Are you sure you're not confusing AND and OR? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionistic_logic#Relation_...

Literally copying from Wikipedia: The system of classical logic is obtained by adding any one of the following axioms: ϕ ∨ ¬ϕ (Law of the excluded middle), ...

where ∨ means OR, not AND... right?

Re: MIT Ends Elsevier Negotiations

#226

Post by qchris » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 5:27 AM UTC

sicco wrote: post #206

obiefernandez wrote: post #5

Further indications that Aaron Swartz didn't die completely in vain...

Obligatory "for those who haven't seen the documentary about Aaron's life": https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9vz06QO3UkQ

Thank you so much for posting this; I hadn't heard of this documentary before, and the name Aaron Swartz was just something that sounded vaguely familiar. Just watched it, and I'm shocked and saddened.

Re: MIT Ends Elsevier Negotiations

#227

Post by qchris » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 5:32 AM UTC

snambi wrote: post #68

Why can't techincal papers use something similar to github/git Pull-request model?

I think you're looking for something like the Journal of Open Source Software [0].

[0] https://joss.theoj.org/

Re: MIT Ends Elsevier Negotiations

#228

Post by c3534l » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 5:54 AM UTC

mehrdadn wrote: post #225

c3534l wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[this was misleading]

Are you sure you're not confusing AND and OR? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionistic_logic#Relation_... Literally copying from Wikipedia: The system of classical logic is obtained by adding any one of the following axioms: ϕ ∨ ¬ϕ (Law of the excluded middle), ... where ∨ means OR, not AND... right?

Yes. In classical logic, p OR !p is always true. You have to add these axioms to get classical logic. Intuitionistic logic doesn't have that. p OR !p is not necessarily true in intuitionistic logic.

Re: MIT Ends Elsevier Negotiations

#229

Post by mehrdadn » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 5:59 AM UTC

c3534l wrote: post #228

mehrdadn wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure you're not confusing AND and OR? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionistic_logic#Relation_... Literally copying from Wikipedia: The system of classical logic is obtained by adding any one of the following axioms: ϕ ∨ ¬ϕ (Law of the excluded middle), ... where ∨ means OR, not AND... right?

Yes. In classical logic, p OR !p is always true. You have to add these axioms to get classical logic. Intuitionistic logic doesn't have that. p OR !p is not necessarily true in intuitionistic logic.

> A and not A are not necessarily contradictions

Nobody was saying p OR !p is necessarily true. The argument was about p AND !p. It really seems to me like you're confusing AND and OR...

The intuitionist will accept that "A and not A" cannot be true https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionism#Truth_and_proof

Re: MIT Ends Elsevier Negotiations

#230

Post by alasdair_ » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 6:02 AM UTC

Doctor_Fegg wrote: post #224

toshk wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of bullshit jobs started a few years ago mostly based upon the idea that the people doing themselves felt like they were doing bullshit jobs, and therefore not feeling fullfilled.

Douglas Adams got there in the 80s with his Golgafrincham B Ark storyline.

>Douglas Adams got there in the 80s with his Golgafrincham B Ark storyline.

If COVID-19 has taught us nothing else, it's that (as Adams warned us) "telephone sanitizers" are absolutely essential.