Solving turbulence is quite literally a millenium prize problem with a 1 million USD price tag to it. Solving it would make you famous and almost certainly give you a Fields medal as well. It’s just a particularly difficult problem.
Employers can pull the "non recommendation" thing anywhere under any circumstance. Why would this occurrence be at all special? That’s like saying they got mugged by someone, don’t go there.
>Vaccines that let the hosts survive but do not prevent the spread of the pathogen relax this selection, allowing the evolution of hotter pathogens to occur. This type of vaccine is often called a leaky vaccine. When vaccines prevent transmission, as is the case for nearly all vaccines used in humans, this type of evolution towards increased virulence is blocked. But when vaccines leak, allowing at least some pathogen transmission, they could create the ecological conditions that would allow hot strains to emerge and persist.
Nothing at all. The friction is that it costs a decent chunk of money to submit patents. It’s not worthwhile to submit gibberish ones that will never be accepted, or never hold up in court if accepted but challenged. But there is probably some potential market for an innovative AI able to produce patents worth more than the fees they incur, for legitimate or trolling purposes.
More likely to be the opposite. It would be very easy to explore prior art through tons of databases. On the other hand, AI has been touted for years to be on the verge of revolutionizing case law and this has yet to happen.
Lots of people upload their research to ResearchGate (even though I really dislike the site for other reasons), make it available from their research group's web page, or in some fields upload it to ArXiv or BioRxiv. It's usually not against the terms of paywalled journals to do any of these things. Google Scholar or even the regular Google search engine can be decent at finding these PDF links. As a last resort, if you're serious about wanting to read a paper, you can contact the corresponding author, who will usually email you a copy and be glad you are interested in his/her work, though this becomes a bit impractical if you need access to multiple references.
This essay is basically yet another pamphlet for puritan work ethics. Funny that it comes at a time where "faith" in hard work as a main determinant of success is at a low point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27514188
Then it becomes a matter of game theory as to whether you cash in the bug immediately to empty the pot, or wait for it to grow even more from the positive feedback loop of it being "obviously bug free if it grew this large". For state-sponsored actors, 50M would only be a modest sum.
>Our findings thus consistently relate to loss of grey matter in limbic cortical areas directly linked to the primary olfactory and gustatory system.
Looks like the loss of smell is due to an impact of the virus on brain tissue. It would be interesting to check if it ever comes back to normal months/years later.
It also determines who is in the wrong. Cars normally have to yield to pedestrians and are usually presumed at fault if they hit one. The fine is just an extension of formalizing who has the right of way.
Licensed professions have such things as "reserved acts". This is the issue at hand. Offering legal engineering advice is apparently protected. It's not only that the the judge should dismiss the opinion if presented, it's that even the act of trying to make one in front of a court is possibly illegal. Disclaimers are irrelevant when one is trying to perform such a reserved act, especially if one knowingly does it while ignoring the law.
His exemption makes his field of practice much more limited than a fully licensed engineer and didn't seem to cover making legal advice in court. Court experts should indeed be held to high standards. At this point, being called an engineer is just semantics. In many other locales, someone not licensed is not even allowed to call themselves that, regardless of their degrees.
"I'm not a medical doctor, but here is a bunch of medical advice that should be used to prosecute this defendant." It doesn't sound that great either way. Either you have the expertise to make such judgments, or you don't, and shouldn't try to pass off legal opinions you can't legally make with a disclaimer, as if that absolves everything. I can fully understand someone getting irritated at this and trying to go one step further.
China should be the bellwether for this as they had early lockdowns that initially decreased emissions. They still managed to emit more cumulatively in 2020 than in 2019. They keep increasing their emissions while everyone is distracted. They won’t be the only one. In many places, mostly developing nations, there will be pressures to make up for the economic losses.
There are tons of cellular network antennas hidden atop buildings in regular urban environments. Thankfully, in the current paradigm, telcos pay rent to put down these antennas and occupy the space.
Ranking only makes sense in a venue where the number of papers or presentations is limited. There many online journals of good reputation that will publish anything over a certain (obviously not perfectly well-defined) bar. The number of papers tends to increase over the years as the numbers of researchers also increase, and this is considered acceptable. Other journals are so selective that they won’t publish anything if nothing is deemed worthy.
You’re also misunderstanding the point of reviews. They also serve as comments to the authors to modify their manuscript and make it acceptable for publication.
If reviewers are de-anonymized, the opposite of what you think will happen. Nobody other than the most socially stunted would be willing to write a harsh review and make an enemy for life. People are petty. Most fields in academia are incredibly small, with everyone knowing each other. Reviews would become way more positive and useless. Collusion for positive review is pretty rare and wouldn’t really change with real names anyway because it’s pretty subjective to claim a positive judgement is obviously the result of collusion. It’s also already the job of the editors to collate the reviews and make his own judgment based on them. If one review is overly positive and adds no useful information, it can and will be discarded. The editor can even call for another reviewer if he/she is still undecided. I’ve reviewed papers and recommended acceptance, yet the paper was still rejected; the opposite has happened too. As a reviewer you are only advising the editor.
You can’t be as candid in your criticisms if the identity of the reviewers is made available to the authors. This is the main reason they’re made anonymous. If you think there can be a conflict of interest, the main mechanism in most fields is to point who shouldn’t be a reviewer for your paper. If you forget someone and they are asked, it’s also their responsibility to recuse themselves. Of course it’s based on trust. Trust is still the foundation of academia.
Bell Labs in its heyday was still reputed to be publish or perish, or patent or perish, without any tenure system either. At my university, we had a previous Bell Labs researcher that said he had been pushed out. As a corporate researcher, there is still high pressure to output something.