ta123456789

Right, I can see they had < 2000 followers before this project, now 14.5k.

https://twitter.com/sawaratsuki1004/status/17821291471434139...

The logos were very popular on twitter, see the account of the author here:

https://twitter.com/sawaratsuki1004

The open issues almost all requests for different logos.

People have already made their own t-shirts, stickers, keychains etc. using the logos:

https://twitter.com/seneke_/status/1784517808900173879

https://twitter.com/vu_port/status/1784178240921481592

https://twitter.com/bmd_SHUNTA/status/1783870775541592143

This already happening in many places. And does not seem to be he intended application in the OP

Look up the incredible profit margins of publishers such as Elsevier or Springer.

University researchers/teachers who publish books or articles through them often get paid nothing (zero), or very little. And they do not care, since their goal is get publications in prestigious venues, which helps them in their academic career.

My point is that this stuff should be free, open access, published at low cost through university presses etc. So pirating academic books is basically fine.

At least for science books, authors get paid very little or nothing. And no researcher/teacher relies on that for their income.

I suppose most people using LaTeX come from a scientific background. If you write math papers (for example) there is no good alternative to LaTeX. It has many issues but mostly it just works, so people are content with it.

If you want to write a novel something like Word is probably better. Or just use a typewriter if that's what you like.

I thought the question is not why this is a problem, but rather why is it possible at all for a loose object to end up in the depths of the AC to cause problems. Is there some reason we cannot avoid this?

From a laymans perspective I think of a car, where dropping something small while driving is unlikely to cause problems in the machinery.

I think it is impressive he figured this out as a layman. This article is from one year ago, it would be interesting to see a response from some researchers. For example, have there been any studies to see if this method is valid?

I don't think this is accurate. For example square root of -1 was motivated by clear applications in mathematics, it was definitely not just idle leisurely math. Most of important pure math has not been leisurely or recreational in any sense in its origin

> And -let me get this right- you want society to keep paying you, so you can play with your imagination?

No, pure mathematics is almost never completely recreational. No serious paper gets published in a decent journal without having some motivation and connection to the rest of mathematics.

It is of course valid to ask why we should fund research in pure mathematics, which is not directly related to any "real" applications.

Same question applies to things like niche art, literary studies, history, etc. One answer is that these things are relatively cheap, and our culture would be poor without these things.

With pure maths the advantage is also that it is cheap, and the payoff in applications (if and when they happen) is high.

Many people have been inspired by this book and it is entertaining. But in terms of history it is notoriously inaccurate, and some parts are just made up to make it more exciting.

> you should not, absolutely not translate math notation to code.

I don't see a problem, if eg it helps with getting some intuition.

Sure there is a formula for this example. But the point in the article of writing this sum as a for loop is to explain what the notation means.

For a programmer who is not familiar with sigma/pi notation for sum/product, explaining it with a for loop is a quick way to understand.

I can get access to papers through my university, but even then there are many which lack subscription. And working from home, usually it is faster to just download the paper from sci-hub than go through a university login to get access.

I remember even using sci-hub for some 19th century papers, which are surely in the public domain...

It's a nice proof, but probably not new.

Same proof for example here: https://mathoverflow.net/a/32031

OEIS foundation:

http://oeisf.org/

It's nice to see they have a solid plans on how to keep the website running indefinitely.

PDF papers are also much easier to save/archive and use offline. And great for printing

This "impersonal" approach to also works in the other direction. Someone who said something objectively bad once doesn't have to be a "known bad person" forever.

Circadian rhythm disruption: working across many timezones, lack of sleep, etc. could be one explanation. Stress could also be a factor?

Seems like it would be completely fine to eat, even regularly. With mushrooms having 1000 Bq/kg at worst, according to samples by BfS.

> The consumption of 200 grams of mushrooms with 2,000 becquerel caesium-137 per kilogram results in an exposure of 0.005 millisievert. This is considerably less than the radiation exposure during a flight from Frankfurt to Gran Canaria. However, if adults eat such a mushroom meal each week, they will receive an additional annual radiation exposure corresponding to about twenty flights from Frankfurt to Gran Canaria. Expressed in numbers it is 0.27 millisievert.

https://www.bfs.de/EN/topics/ion/environment/foodstuffs/mush...

More details please?

Russia does not have a "no-first-use commitment". The only countries with such a commitment are China and India.

How is that relevant to the comments you are replying to?

China does not need nuclear weapons to take Taiwan, and for both military and political reasons it would be incredibly stupid for them to resort to nuclear threats. And as mentioned they have a no-first-use policy.

China and India are the only nuclear powers with a no-first-use policy.

I haven't followed very closely, but isn't it only in the past 1-2 years some top players have also become popular streamers/youtubers? And they are becoming more and more popular. Which would imply that there will be more and more useless drama like this in the future.

"The ultimate effect of pay-to-play is that the traditional peer review and refereeing process has broken down. If a dishonest researcher gets rejected from a reputable journal, they can take their paper to a pay-to-play journal and have it published there. With over 10,000 academic journals, it’s impossible for the lay public to track which journals are reputable and which are not. As far as the public is concerned, a published paper is a valid paper."

Ok, but I take some issue with this.

Most scientific papers are not intended at the general public, but at experts working in the specific area that the paper covers. Also, often these papers are not even understandable by a phd outside the area, let alone a lay person.

Which journals and authors are reputable are known to experts in the area. "Pay to play" papers published in obscure journals will not get much attention or be taken seriously.

The polls in Finland showing > 50% support at the start of the war, and now even > 70% support for NATO. So this has seemed inevitable for almost two months. Any other choice would have been political suicide for the leading party SDP, and probably would have resulted in a new election. Whether it is the right choice I am not yet convinced, but basically it is now or never if Finland wants to join. Later it would be impossible to join.