31–40 of 41 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
dying from a disease is still a natural cause. Unnatural would be getting killed, suicide, accidents etc.
The term "natural causes" is a misnomer for "non-human-agent causes".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm morbidly curious what the odds are that someone reading this will be gone tomorrow. I'll bet it's non-trivial.
I think you are right: the chances aren't extreme, but are non-trivial. This looks to be a chart that has the mortality data necessary to answer your question (although presumably it also includes "non-natural" causes like suicide and homicide): https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html . The first two columns show age, and the probability that a holder of an American Social Security card who is of that age will d…
How does one publish 30 papers in 3 years? That is an insane rate! Just navigating the political ramifications, dealing with revisions, etc, on three or four a year is a serious pain in the ass, let alone ten.
Well co-author. First author is one thing, co-author is another. And I no way mean any disrespect to someone who obviously has contributed a great deal to his field.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think there's the concept of first author in theoretical CS? All the papers I've seen there follow the same practice as in Math, where authors are just alphabetical.
No matter how they are listed , someone is probably doing a disprortionate share of the team wrangling and managing the process to publication.
Live as if you were going to die tomorrow, learn as if you were going to live forever – Gandhi
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No matter how they are listed , someone is probably doing a disprortionate share of the team wrangling and managing the process to publication.
That's another matter entirely. Yes, authors don't always bring equal contribution and effort into an academic work. But, here it's someone claiming that not being first author is a major deal, or bears any significance at all, when in fact it doesn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's another matter entirely. Yes, authors don't always bring equal contribution and effort into an academic work. But, here it's someone claiming that not being first author is a major deal, or bears any significance at all, when in fact it doesn't.
I read the claim that not being first author (who in may, but not all—IIRC, e.g., biosciences are different—other fields is normally the person who is the administrative point) means less irreducible management overhead limiting total throughput, in response to a comment indication that the shear administrative overhead of the number of publications seemed prohibitive.
I'm not sure which the original comment though.