41–50 of 77 posts
Ah cool… I also took a stab at something similar several years ago: https://github.com/ecausarano/heron Also at the time I was considering IPFS. But I guess the real trick is implementing a WOT to implement peer review and filter out the inevitable junk that will be published
Slightly OT, but how is IPFS these days? Every time I've tried using it the past few years it seemed very WIP. Cool sounding protocol though.
Slightly OT, but how is IPFS these days? Every time I've tried using it the past few years it seemed very WIP. Cool sounding protocol though.
If the files are cached and the services are up, it's plenty fast for static data but dynamic data (IPNS) is still very slow.
We've built a competitor called Skynet that is much faster (less than 200ms for files that aren't in the cache) and scales better. It's currently hosting tens of millions of files across 200+ TB of data.
We really like the vision that IPFS had and we think decentralized data is the future of the Internet. We're proud to have put in the legwork to make it practical.
Not to be confused with viXra, which is a sci-fi alternative to arXiv
arXiv does not accept papers from authors with no institutional affiliation and viXra was the only (and ugly) alternative. There is an opportunity there to fix both sites.
Not to be confused with viXra, which is a sci-fi alternative to arXiv
viXra is full of nonsense but then again so is arXiv (see: 750GeV debacle). viXra desperately needed a voting system and if it did it would likely have been much more useful and become a viable alternative to arXiv. arXiv does not accept papers from authors with no institutional affiliation and viXra was the only (and ugly) alternative. There is an opportunity there to fix both sites.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually I don't think science has democratic nature. Yes we do somehow do that as a theory would still need to be accepted widely. But in reality one person can have the correct idea while all others disagree. Still this person is doing it right.
Scientific consensus is democratic in nature (even though votes are not distributed evenly). The ideal is that through reproducible experiments and application of the scientific method the scientific consensus moves to increasingly accurate models of reality over time. But obviously the speed at which that happens varies, and some right ideas took annoyingly long to get accepted into scientific consensus.
"Fermi first submitted his "tentative" theory of beta decay to the prestigious science journal Nature, which rejected it "because it contained speculations too remote from reality to be of interest to the reader." Nature later admitted the rejection to be one of the great editorial blunders in its history. ... Fermi found the initial rejection of the paper so troubling that he decided to take some time off from theoretical physics, and do only experimental physics" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi%27s_interaction
Ah cool… I also took a stab at something similar several years ago: https://github.com/ecausarano/heron Also at the time I was considering IPFS. But I guess the real trick is implementing a WOT to implement peer review and filter out the inevitable junk that will be published
> jupyter-comment supports a number of commenting services [...]. In helping users decide which commenting and annotation services to include on their pages and commit to maintaining, could we discuss criteria for assessment and current features of services?
> Possible features for comparison:
> * Content author can delete / hide
> * Content author can report / block
> * Comments / annotations are screened by spam-fighting service
> * Content / author can label as e.g. toxic
> * Content author receives notification of new comments
> * Content author can require approval before user-contributed content is publicly-visible
> * Content author may allow comments for a limited amount of time (probably more relevant to BlogPostings)
> * Content author may simultaneously denounce censorship in all it's forms while allowing previously-published works to languish
#ForScience
Slightly OT, but how is IPFS these days? Every time I've tried using it the past few years it seemed very WIP. Cool sounding protocol though.
It's still very slow - retrieval times >30s for files that aren't cached on cloudflare or ipfs.io. Also, those two providers each have multiple periods of downtime every year. If the files are cached and the services are up, it's plenty fast for static data but dynamic data (IPNS) is still very slow. We've built a competitor called Skynet that is much faster (less than 200ms for files that aren't in the cache) and sc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
viXra is full of nonsense but then again so is arXiv (see: 750GeV debacle). viXra desperately needed a voting system and if it did it would likely have been much more useful and become a viable alternative to arXiv. arXiv does not accept papers from authors with no institutional affiliation and viXra was the only (and ugly) alternative. There is an opportunity there to fix both sites.
What was the 750GeV debacle? That thing were some people said LHC had found a new particle maybe?
https://motls.blogspot.com/2016/06/ambulance-chasing-is-just...
http://resonaances.blogspot.com/2016/06/game-of-thrones-750-...
"You can upload your research and publish it on the open web. Members of the community will be able to vote on your research to raise its visibility." Oh dear.