m-watson

Yea, it does seem interesting looking at the differences. And it isn't like I know Finnish, I used google translate but even just the bolded intro is different

English: There have been incorrect reports in the media about the Finnish experimental study on a Universal Basic Income. The experiment will run until the end of 2018 as planned.

Finnish[1] (in English): In many international media, information has been published that Finland is going to suspend a baseline experiment. However, the experiment will continue according to the original plan until the end of 2018.

[1] http://www.kela.fi/ajankohtaista-henkiloasiakkaat/-/asset_pu...

Oh man do I hate Labview. I used everything else when possible including C, python with C bindings, and even MatLab compiling into C to give direct equipment directions. But that being said it is just my (and it seems like your) preference. I had several peers who were significantly better at getting the whole lab collection, processing, and output process up and running quickly and efficiently and they did not know how to code. I think there is a space for "no code" tools. Of course there will be someone on the back working with code but visual tools help lower that barrier for individuals with other skills than coding.

Oh absolutely there is a sliding scale on both the actual practice of science as well as the reporting. From the practice of it, I know as simple anecdote I have participated in conducting research in hard science (physics), softer hard science (biology), social science (behavioral and economic), as well as straight policy analysis with a "scientific approach" through data science. The findings from those are reported differently and have stronger or weaker words and conclusions. I think that is where the practice sliding scale comes in, is how the researcher decided to write up and report their findings and appropriately identifying their methodology and short-comings.

From the journalism side I think you end up with the problem the wide spread field of journalism has, you have to be read by your audience. That means something with a wider audience is probably going to be more on the ELI5 side which means both the reader and the journalist have to take any reported findings more lightly.

The sliding scale, I believe, comes in with the rigor something is reported. That is both in the practice and the journalistic side. More details can give a more granular understanding showing limitations but some times broad strokes are necessary to get some information out to a wider audience or more quickly.

Yes, thank you for saying this. I feel like, often, people use science as some ethereal being. It is a process that has to be used. If that process isn't happening it isn't science. That doesn't mean everything has to be science, but things that are science should be held to a certain standard but should also be taken with the extra weight if that standard is met.

I agree it shouldn't be used blindly but that seems like the extreme. In fact the science side of things would say don't use anything blindly. Science isn't some infallible entity it is a process that is supposed to be self correcting over periods of time. That includes falsehoods from human bias and input. It doesn't always work and it is a slow process but in science's essence it is supposed to be minimizing those errors.

But again, getting back to agreeing, scientific findings should not be used blindly, they should be used to inform. And as reproduction of findings occurs, the the topic that is being informed gets re-enforced or course corrected. It is very similar to policy, you have to try things. Some times the policy does what you want, other times it doesn't, and the process should continue and be correcting.

It is nice to see this ruling, it makes scrapings legitimacy more concrete. There was the court's rejection back in 2017 for LinkedIn's case[1] that made an implicit statement but an actual ruling is helpful.

[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/08/court-rejects-li...

I don't know if the exploitation will be fast enough to make a huge difference, at least for the time being. It being so difficult to get to it gives other leading countries, namely China, to re-think their exploitation and sale of these materials. They could find a way to stabilize the supply side market with this extra time. Especially since so much of the manufacturing using these materials is done in their country. Still though, I agree this new supply should change buying and manufacturing behavior.

I'm not sure the previous poster is 100% correct but honestly I have not looked into it in depth. I know the times I have gone through it the journals did provide typesetting and copy-editing for some aspects of the paper.

However, to get to your actual question a big reason people use journals is simply the name. As a researcher getting your paper published in Nature is not only big because the prestige but presumably more people read/see nature articles so you have a better chance at high impact.

TL;DR Their value is their reputation and reach.

Just open it in private/incognito browser, free and less tracking!

Very true on both counts. I do enjoy a good ridiculous arxiv every once and awhile. I think that is partially where community comes in handy.

Here is the pre-print version of the article: https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.05363

It is a kind of funny situation that springer has this published.

Pre-prints are extremely useful in fields where they are widely used. Physics, my original field, uses arxiv as well as self hosted locations. I know biology is trying to do more of this as well. I really don't understand why other fields just start pushing towards this more open model.

I think it is reasonable to question academia and research but I think a problem, often, is people want science and research to give us answers. It does not, it provides evidence, and once that evidence gets supported enough times it is viewed as closer and closer to reality. I would say it is asymptotic though, we never reach what is fact because there can always be a missing piece of evidence that shows a different result.

There is one statement you make that I do want to directly comment on. The point of more research is needed is simply, that more research is needed. It goes directly to your statement of "do we know more about human behavior due to the ..." We learn more with all research and the way research currently gets disseminated is through publication. More research is needed publications as well as null result research is extremely useful in the research community and often does not get the attention outside (or inside sadly) the scientific community that it deserves.

This is ridiculous that it was even introduced but the article itself (and many ars comments) note:

* Just because it was referred to a committee or even introduced doesn't mean it has any legitimate chance of being passed

* Even if it did get passed there seem to be a lot of low hanging fruit lawsuits that would be filed right away

Just to add on top of that the OPM breach was and still is pretty serious. A lot of personal information for a lot of people was leaked and is easily in the hands of malicious state and individual actors. The sheer scale of the breach and the amount of information out there can be leveraged by a lot of people.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Personnel_Management...

[1] https://www.wired.com/2016/10/inside-cyberattack-shocked-us-...

[2] http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/0...

Those comments are a lot of fun to read through. It seems like, at least on HN, people were generally positive about Dropbox. A lot of comments about solving a problem (more so for windows users) and having a good demo.

I suppose we currently are not and don't? I think a big aspect of this is that everyone makes mistakes and with an increasingly interconnected, complicated, and honestly insecure digital world those mistakes are just going to be amplified.

That is definitely an interesting perspective and I would agree there are a lot of people who just want the lower cost and clean bed for a night. However, is this move to add functionality really moving Airbnb out of the low cost market? You can still find very inexpensive options (as long as there are hosts) on the website. Airbnb, I would say, is just expanding their market pool not limiting it.

There are longer wavelength amplification by stimulated emission of radiation (LASER without the L for light) devices but there are technological limitations like cavity size (often larger) and lower power. An example used in astronomy is the MASER: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maser

Yea that title is just absurd. DHS wants to release an inert gas to see how it flows through the environment and how it is absorbed into things around the town.

Tedious comment, I know, but with the real title being "I-66 express lanes debut with $34.50 toll, among the highest in U.S." And it not being DC's I-66, this title is misleading. If the idea of DC being in the title is that important, use DC Area I-66, but really, it is a Virginia thing happening here, not DC.

The Outer Space Treaty may say that but back in 2015 the United States said it will allow US corporations to keep and sell what they mine in space. So it will be interesting to see how it actually plays out.

[0] https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2262 [1] https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/ezp4yk/the-us-say... [2] https://www.planetaryresources.com/2015/11/president-obama-s...

Not really addressing the heart of your question but WaPo is owned by Bezos and his holding company not Amazon. So they would not really have a great reason to siphon off Amazon's revenue stream.

Aw, you beat me to it. I had a meeting to run to and didn't respond. But adding to that there is a whole wiki (of course there is) about this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_and_Bob