Twitter | Pretraživanje | |
michael_nielsen 2. velj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
Of course, in 1992 it was reasonable publishers hadn't yet figured out new business models. Nowadays, things have changed s'what, due to the work by open access & science advocates, but scientific publishing is still slow-moving for reasons described here:
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Jeffrey Ladish 2. velj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
Seems fine in 2020. Free PDF available when googled. Probably wasn't the case in 1992.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Periperi • DNC Chair 2. velj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen @Noahpinion
Irony
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Jacob Martinson 2. velj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen @Noahpinion
Do they address the quality of writing? Like, it's easy to write off some inaccessibility to the complexity of science, but a lot of papers somehow get published with just basic editing problems, like being unable to tell where someone's quote ends and their analysis starts.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
George Stockbridge 2. velj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
This is so annoying when I’m trying to research as a student
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Karthik Sridhar 2. velj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
OMG DED
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
doug orr 2. velj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen @Noahpinion
Yeeeah, the problem with the whole "training" and "we'll spread tech around to underdeveloped economic areas" thing. (A) fordism is, regrettably, dead (B) get behind and it's hard to catch up because the future is accelerating away from us
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
John Sigmon 2. velj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
I wish Scott Aaronson was on Twitter :(
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
shale 2. velj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"