Would love this but I feel like it is equally likely to end up being something like: “solve 500 leet code hard problems with agentic tooling while I grill you about a time when you dealt with failure”
I still prefer that to "here's a problem statement with some subtle non-obvious approach specific to this class of problem, either you've memorized it in advance or you fail."
I appreciate them doing the right thing in this one particular instance but I can’t say that I feel anything but hatred toward the people who chose to enrich and empower themselves by casting the very existence of humanity at risk.
Do you not notice the circularity of your reasoning here?
Also I didn't say incompetent, I said "not very". More competent researchers make journal rep only a very small factor, and it is not via the "high rep = more trustworthy" direction (which is the bad heuristic), it is "pay-to-publish journals = not trustworthy" (better heuristic).
Once you have ruled out a publication being in a trash journal, reputation is only a very minor factor in consideration, and methodological and substantive issues are what matter.
It all depends on whether the paper fits the journal. Minor journals serve a useful service as a repository for minor results. And minor results are still worth publishing because they might provide a detail or technique later needed for a major result. The thing to be wary of is when you see a stunning result that should really be in _Nature_ or _Science_ in some minor journal. Why isn't it? Was it submitted there first and rejected? It would be nice if the history of a manuscript (and its peer review) stayed with a manuscript so you could see if the authors really corrected problems brought up by peer review or were just spamming journals with a flawed manuscript until they found one that published it.
Agree with all this. Once you've filtered / made decisions of quality based on the more substantive criteria, journal reputation can provide useful additional information / context. The case you mentioned is a good example.
There is no reasoning. I gave you a statement of fact:
I have personally seen highly talented and successful researchers use the heuristic of journal quality when looking at the state of their field. These people are highly competent by any standard. If you want to play word games with negation you could say they are not not very competent.
Less of a problem in a county that is more or less laid out East to West with massive 500 mile wide provinces. British Columbia deciding to adopt Mountain Standard Time is more or less equivalent to Portugal using Berlin time.
I'm thinking more 'companies in the same country working together' - physical distance does not really matter, imho. Many countries span 1000km and unless traveling in person you don't care if it's east-west or north-south. Coordinating meetings and opening times is different.
It is pretty hard to have a calm discussion about the outbreak of war. War is awful. People will suffer, people will die. Being angry is an appropriate response. The article is just a list of the ap wire briefs, so it does not tell us very much.
As the sister comment to this makes clear: regulation is needed in this area but that specific bill has a ton of problems. We should rewrite it and remove the more privacy infringing aspects.
That's an interesting point in general. On this particular topic I would go so far as to say that the citizen journalists are far more than what professional journalists are producing. I would guess that this is more a function of the idiosyncrasies of this particular data source. Most journalists are experts in tracking down hearsay and getting specific people to talk. The house Epstein email releases are just a massive pile of open data where someone with a more data-centric background can walk in and apply their skills.
Massive piles of documents, released erratically and possessing apparently random and sloppy redactions with inconsistent formatting rules are a common tactic in some corporate cases as well, since they intend to wear down opposing counsel through exploitation of reptile theory.
AFAICT it's not well considered by DoJ that this works roughly in proportion to the technical aptitude of opposing counsel. The public has excellent technical aptitude when motivated and none otherwise and this is clearly a situation of motivation.
The killing in Bosnia and Kosovo were stopped by Bill Clinton. The bombings were what brought all sides to the table to broker the Dayton agreement. The siege of Sarajevo ended. The peace has held for nearly 30 years now.
Seems clear they were talking about NATO intervention in 1999 and the ouster of Milosevic. Also notable as a military intervention that was at the time widely seen as a "Wag The Dog" scenario.
reply