Copy the env files into your password manager?
1,840 karma · joined March 27, 2012
The Leaflet.Geodesic plugin can render (polygonal approximations to) geodesic circles correctly. Based on playing around with this demo [1] (drag the central marker to reposition, and drag the outer marker to resize), I don't think the deviation from circles would really be noticeable for most of the lights.
(Edit: some lights may only be illuminated in a particular sector, and there may obstacles blocking the view in some directions - arguably both of these are far more significant problems with the use of circles as markers)
[1]: https://blog.cyclemap.link/Leaflet.Geodesic/circle-interacti...
That sounds low: a secondary school with no sixth-form will have students in 5 different year groups, and will typically have more than two classes per year group.
Both seem to provide a similar interface for dragging in a CSV file and constructing a chart, but RawGraphs is open-source, and can be used in the browser without installing anything (or the code can be downloaded and served locally).
The main advantage of Daigo over RawGraphs seems to be that it supports publishing multiple charts as a dashboard. However, in the examples it looks like there is no cross-linking or coordination between charts, which is a limitation
You are probably thinking of the $5 wrench in https://xkcd.com/538/
> We do expect that authors leave citations to their previous work unanonymized so that reviewers can ensure that all previous research has been taken into account by the authors. However, authors are required to cite their own work in the third person, e.g., avoid “As described in our previous work [10], … ” and use instead “As described by [10], …”
However, it is true that things like choice of research questions, approach, and equipment used can be quite suggestive of the authors' identity.
[1]: https://chi2020.acm.org/authors/papers/chi-anonymisation-pol...
I think you are slightly confused - the "alternative" that you describe is actually what happened in this case (and in all the cases of retracted papers that I've encountered).
A Retraction Notice has been published at a separate publication [1] with its own DOI, and it cites the original paper [2].
The original paper [2] has been updated to indicate that it has been retracted. In the HTML version, there is an orange banner saying "This article has been retracted". In the PDF version [3] there is a red header, and the retraction notice has been appended as an extra page.
But you are correct that it is important to be able to update PDFs if a significant mistake (or deliberate fraud) is identified.
[1]: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scisignal.abn0168
[2]: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scisignal.aag1064
[3]: https://www.science.org/doi/epdf/10.1126/scisignal.aag1064
The "Post" section of the page linked by lazyjeff says:
>Otherwise known as "Self-Archiving" or "Posting Rights", all ACM published authors of magazine articles, journal articles, and conference papers retain the right to post the pre-submitted (also known as "pre-prints"), submitted, accepted, and peer-reviewed versions of their work in any and all of the following sites:
> Author's Homepage
> ...
So posting a PDF of the "accepted version" to a personal website is not a "grey area" - it is explicitly permitted by the ACM.
This is the usual situation: authors retain the rights to put the "accepted" version on their homepage. This includes all the changes made in response to reviewer comments, but is formatted by the author rather than the publisher.
Unless they have selected an open-access option (which usually requires paying a fee), they typically do not have the rights to post the "publisher formatted" version. However, in fields like CS the submitted version is usually produced using a LaTeX template for the journal so looks very similar to the publisher-formatted version; the main differences are often things like the journal name and page numbers written in the headers and footers.
For lazyjeff's example, you can compare the version on his homepage [1] with the version on the ACM DL [2], and see that they look quite similar, but one obvious difference is the formatting of the last page: in the author-formatted version, the left column fills the full height of the page, and the right column is shorter; in the published version the left column is shortened so that both columns are the same height.
https://github.com/uwdata/gemini
> What are subscriber links
>A subscriber link is a mechanism by which LWN subscribers may grant free access to specific LWN articles to others. It takes the form of a special link which bypasses the subscription gate for that article.
> Where is it appropriate to post a subscriber link?
> Almost anywhere. Private mail, messages to project mailing lists, and blog entries are all appropriate. As long as people do not use subscriber links as a way to defeat our attempts to gain subscribers, we are happy to see them shared.
[1]: http://sigtbd.csail.mit.edu/#
However, the mini preview table of 3 rows shows that the names have been correctly extracted.
Either something is broken, or the UI is confusing.
For doing research, I think Prolific [1] is a popular alternative.
They include features like pre-screening based on demographic features (including participants' approval rates in past studies) [2], and attention check questions [3].
[2]: https://researcher-help.prolific.co/hc/en-gb/articles/360009...
[3]: https://researcher-help.prolific.co/hc/en-gb/articles/360009...
However, the problem of finding a drawing that minimises the number of edge crossings (or even just the number of crossings in such a layout [e.g., 2]) for a general graph is NP-hard.
> This is why I never understood why this analysis was very helpful
If a system is not identifiable/observable, there may be multiple values for the parameters/state (respectively) that are consistent with observations; if you try to infer these without checking for identifiability/observability, you may obtain values that are consistent with observations but very different to the true values, which can result in serious errors when you try to do something using them.
> it isn't very useful outside of the specific experiment / motion / inputs used
There are cases where some parameters cannot be identified regardless of what inputs are provided to the system. For example, when you write down the differential equations governing the system in a particular way, you might see that two parameters (k1 and k2) always appear together as a product (k1 * k2), never independently - so their individual values are not identifiable, though (k1 * k2) is; this could be fixed by re-parametrising, by replacing k1 * k2 by k3.
Also, some parameters have very little effect on the behaviour of a system, so are weakly constrained by observations ("sloppiness"), whilst others are more tightly constrained - it can useful to know which are which.
The problem of constructing a model of a system's dynamics is system identification [0].
A state observer [1] tries to determine the internal state of the system given measurements of a system's inputs outputs and a model of its dynamics. The system is observable [2] if the state observer can fully reconstruct the internal state. One motivation for checking whether a system is observable is to determine whether a given combination of sensors (corresponding to a particular set of outputs) is sufficient to for the internal state to be determined, or whether more should be added.
The state observer of a process is another dynamical system whose inputs are the process input and process output, and whose output is an estimate of the process' internal state; if the system is observable, then this estimate converges to the true state over time. This whole formalism doesn't really apply to something like your example, which has no dynamics.
If you have the code for the hash function in your example, then determining the values that its internal variables take for an arbitrary input is trivial; if you don't then it is very difficult. In either case, your problem is different to the problem of observabilty in control theory.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_identification
In his case, a physicist is looking at a problem that already has a standard mathematical formalism in control theory, and is suggesting new theoretical approaches to apply to it that he claims provides additional insights.
And, whereas in the cartoon the physicist says, "why does <your field> need a whole journal, anyway", the author of this monograph publishes in existing control theory journals (e.g., [1] in IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control).
[1]: https://www.apple.com/child-safety/
[2]: https://www.apple.com/child-safety/pdf/Apple_PSI_System_Secu...