Iron exists in many different crystal structures in different kinds of steels. Some of these forms are magnetic, others are not. When you work the metal, such as by bending it, you can cause it to change from one structure to another.
304 is an austenitic stainless steel, and austenite is non-magnetic. But when it's cold worked, it turns into martensite, which is harder and magnetic. If you anneal it by heating it and letting it cool, it turns back into austenite.
Martensite is less corrosion-resistant. But note that slight working like bending it a bit will only turn a small portion of it into martensite, most of it will remain austenitic.
Not a physicist, but I’d guess that bending the metal causes it to heat up, which in turn could make it easier for electrons to align and respond to magnetic waves.
CriticMarkup seems to emit more correct HTML, but is more demanding (e.g. it recommends against embedded newlines). It doesn't emit TeX. It does have more (i.e. any) editor syntax files.
I mildly prefer having the marks outside the brackets: ++[foo]++ seems easier to read than {++foo++} because the "wrapping" is outside the "box".
While I strongly empathize with the author's feelings on this (I've had similar feelings in my own field), I also want to voice an opposing viewpoint:
> Good/useful/valuable/important/positive-ROI science doesn't necessarily require everyone to know what the major discoveries are nor even care when 60% of studies fail to replicate.
Handful of reasons I feel this way:
- If I care deeply about exactly 10 of the 100 publications in my sub-field, and you care about a different 10, it may not matter much to either of us when 60 of them are later refuted. I may have not cared about those specific conclusions, already been skeptical about them, or have several other studies and my own unpublished results to maintain my confidence in the broader idea.
- While we all have great examples of dramatic upheavals in _other_ people's fields — pick your favorite of cosmology, genetic engineering, mathematics, etc. — when you're immersed in it, science is much more incremental, subtle, and complex. Congratulations! You've ventured on beyond the Dunning-Kruger effect. Scientific progress is not a series of miracles.
- Relatedly, I'm guessing most scientists are much more aware of the shortcomings in their own and their peers' research. Do keep this in mind while reading the perspective of an insider. Be skeptical, by all means, but not only of psychology.
If Einstein's paper on Special Relativity were proven wrong there would be quite a stir. Is there such a paper in psychology carrying such weight? Or even a central idea?
All of the central ideas in psychology are actually cribbed from philosophy (very selectively and almost never with attribution because you know, we're doing "science"; biased toward material that can be wrenched into guidance for "positive outcomes" that get the grants and TED talk invites), while all the data is extraordinarily messy, mantled under mouldering traditions of associating ones product with the group protection of a figurehead "school" (i.e. so-and-so's Biopsychoturbochemo Model) highly resistant or essentially unsuited to normalization, and of course unrepeatable in any rigorous sense.
The biggest difference between psychology, (alongsid its armed infantry counterpart psychiatry,) is that unlike math or physics or chemistry, which are all intrinsically descriptive, psychology is concerned with how to change behavior that has not yet happened. Not to describe phenomena that already exist but have not been encountered or formally described yet.
I don't know this particular story, but — FWIW — it's common for different teams working in the same field to be aware of each other's manuscripts and impending submissions. When two teams are about to submit papers with the same discovery, they'll often work with an editor to put it in the same journal issue.
By coordinating a simultaneous publication they can get extra publicity for the discovery, both get the first-mover advantage in citations (both papers get cited by everyone), and also get breathing room to be fully rigorous and write the best possible paper.
I too owe a lot of my PhD and postdoc productivity to Snakemake. It's my bioinformatics super-power, allowing me to run a complex analysis, including downloading containers (Singularity/Apptainer) and other dependencies (conda), with one command.
Great for reproducibility. Great for development. Great for scaling analyses.
I think my gripe with the argument in this video (which is, nonetheless, interesting from an offensive marketing perspective) is that equating making clothes out of petroleum products with "being a friend of the oil and gas industry" is disingenuous. For the most part, the environmentally disastrous emissions come from _burning_ fossil fuels; I'm guessing cheap plastics are just a side-effect of a massive energy market, and not a major driver of the industry.
Pollution occurs in many ways, not just burning. The whole "microplastics" thing is largely due to apparel made from petroleum-based synthetic materials. Activewear and outdoor wear are rarely if ever made from natural materials anymore. Not to mention all the energy needed to process crude oil into those materials.
That used to be the case, but the industry is incorporating more cheap plastics to harden against future projected fossil fuel revenue loss. On that topic, this PBS Frontline episode is a good resource: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/plastic-wars/
If we turn every ounce of oil in the ground into plastic that's a problem, but a way more manageable one than burning even half that amount in our atmosphere.
It isn't enough to say we're seeing something in blood and fetuses, it has to be quantified by how it is a problem.
I find alcohol in my blood all the time, I understand the effects and manage it so it's never a problem. Alcohol in fetuses on the other hand is a well understood problem where no level is really tolerable.
From the linked article, plastics are a problem but the pollution level is probably below the threshold of harm for most people. But it's also possible that the levels have increased over the past couple of years to the point that it is harmful.
I think this is a fair concern, but if we're being honest, we know the real, present, and accelerating danger from putting more GHGs into the atmosphere. We are currently unaware of the negative impacts of traces of plastics in our bodies.
It makes a ton of sense to put the literal fire out now, and worry about what the effects of the plastics are when there is evidence of serious concern.
This is a very common argument, but I'm still waiting for the link to that and...anything else.
If we think it causes cancer (*and have some evidence) then sure, but if it's just like ' hey this stuff is here' then I will continue to be more afraid of 'ecological collapse.'
I just tested the PDF reader out for about 5 minutes and I can already say it's substantially better for me on MacOS than any other PDF reader besides Preview. No glitching like Acrobat and the annotations features are more inline with what I want than Preview's are.
i agree it’s great. some minor ux issues. for example if i select text then click highlight it should highlight the selected text. keyboard shortcuts for annotation would be amazing.
(Responding more to the title than the well written article itself:)
The question is never what would be good to add to a curriculum; the question is what we should remove.
Students _could_ have classes on statistics, critical thinking, physical education, some sort of art, the "classics", religion, emotional intelligence, resilience, entrepreneurship, ...
Share a point-of-view on which parts of the high school curriculum should be dropped to make room for these and then we can have a _real_ debate (slash argument).
Students can test out of classes early (or get placed out if they solve challenge AKA from-the-next-section problems on tests, or something), and take the other classes instead. Not everyone will be learning everything, like how not everyone takes calculus or advanced chemistry before going to college, but better to teach some students extra then waste their time “teaching” them stuff they already know.
Another issue is, whose going to teach those courses? But we can consolidate classes and rely more on programs like Khan Academy, with teachers only devoting their time to students who struggle. Lots of teaching can be done via just computers at least for advanced students.
> just about every important breakthrough in science in the last 30 years occurred at a privately funded American university.
Really makes it difficult to take the rest of this comment seriously.
In case the ways it is "not even wrong" need to be detailed:
1. Drew Weissman's research was (almost certainly) majority funded by public money doled out by the NIH, NSF, and other national organizations. The public/private status of the university has little bearing on that, as most university research funding comes through these agencies, with something like 50% generally going directly to the universities themselves. Research at "private" universities as it currently exists would not survive without this mechanism.
> something like 10 privately funded American universities make more scientific breakthroughs than the 10,000 publicly funded universities around the world put together
2. Also very false, although arguably hard to prove one way or the other. How do you define breakthroughs? Press releases from university PR departments? Patents? Either way (or by some third—hopefully measurable—way that I'll allow you to define for us) I guarantee that you need to go much further down the list of private universities before you match the output of "all publicly funded universities around the world put together".
I imagine that you have in mind important (and/or well publicized) advancements from MIT/Stanford/Harvard and are forgetting about the enormous amount of research output from public universities (which include but are not limited to Berkeley, CalTech, U of Michigan, Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, U of Texas, Ohio State, etc.)
> Regardless, this idea would be impossible in the first place at a government funded institution so why even bother mentioning it.
3. As you hardly cite any evidence for this, I'll point out that private money can go to diverse people at diverse institutions (including government funded universities).
So my question to _you_ is whether this comment is motivated by a knee-jerk anti-government reaction, or if I'm entirely misunderstanding where you got these ideas?
>1. Drew Weissman's research was (almost certainly) majority funded...
At least where I live, many government grants are only available to people who have also managed to get private industry funding for their work too. These grants are usually very successful. This does not disprove my point in any way, in fact, it _is_ my point
>2. Also very false, although arguably hard to prove one way or the other.
You have to understand that it is in the interest of the tens of thousands of people doing work doing non-sense research to pretend their research is important. Just because you hear about them telling you how important their worki is in the media, doesn't mean it is.
Anyone who has actually worked it research knows every field is filled with 10's of thousands of garbage research papers that are of no value, and that all the key work is produced by just a hand full of people. I remember also reading some researchers that looked at dozens of fields and breakthroughs and found the same thing. All the real work in any breakthrough is done by just 2 or 3 people at most. so this is incorrect, what I said is actually very provable.
>I'll point out that private money can go to diverse people at diverse institutions (including government funded universities).
Yes, that is my point...? You are calling my comment a knee jerk reaction yet you have responded without seeming to understand any of it.
> Anyone who has actually worked it research knows every field is filled with 10's of thousands of garbage research papers that are of no value, and that all the key work is produced by just a hand full of people. I remember also reading some researchers that looked at dozens of fields and breakthroughs and found the same thing. All the real work in any breakthrough is done by just 2 or 3 people at most. so this is incorrect, what I said is actually very provable.
In my experiences, the current system has led to problems with a small number of people "sucking up credit" that's unwarranted, in the sense that they're very very good at taking credit from others and building up a CV that makes it look like they're at the center of things.
In any event, I'm very skeptical of these things at this point based on my personal experiences. Usually progress is incremental and involves a lot of efforts from lots of individuals. Even bigger advances usually involve a confluence of things.
Bibliometric studies are often flawed because they make a lot of false assumptions and ignore realistic dynamics, with corruption and gaming of metrics.
> At least where I live, many government grants are only available to people who have also managed to get private industry funding for their work too.
Grants like that are rare, because there is very little industry funding for basic research. Private funding usually comes from various trusts and foundations that operate in similar ways to government funding agencies.
> I remember also reading some researchers that looked at dozens of fields and breakthroughs and found the same thing. All the real work in any breakthrough is done by just 2 or 3 people at most.
Alexander the Great didn't win battles on his own. He needed a lot of soldiers for that. Similarly, scientific breakthroughs are meaningless on their own. You need a massive amount of grunt work by ordinary researchers to connect them to the real world and make them useful.
> > > Drew Weissman working at the _privately_ funded University of Pennsylvania picked her up. You wouldn't have even needed to look up if the University of Pennsylvania was privately funded, because just about every important breakthrough in science in the last 30 years occurred at a privately funded American university.
> >1. Drew Weissman's research was (almost certainly) majority funded [by public money]...
> At least where I live, many government grants are only available to people who have also managed to get private industry funding for their work too.
I don't believe this is true at Penn, or other universities that I'm aware of in the US. I don't doubt that Dr. Weissman is able to get private foundation funding or corporate sponsorship, but that's very likely an effect of his private funding, rather than the other way around.
> > > something like 10 privately funded American universities make more scientific breakthroughs than the 10,000 publicly funded universities around the world put together
> >2. Also very false, although arguably hard to prove one way or the other. [... How do you define breakthroughs? Press releases from university PR departments?]
> You have to understand that it is in the interest of the tens of thousands of people doing work doing non-sense research to pretend their research is important. Just because you hear about them telling you how important their worki is in the media, doesn't mean it is.
Yes, this is basically my point. Just because you can bring to mind "breakthroughs" from major private universities, doesn't mean that most valuable research is conducted there.
> Anyone who has actually worked it research knows every field is filled with 10's of thousands of garbage research papers that are of no value, and that all the key work is produced by just a hand full of people.
As someone who works in research I agree that there are many garbage papers. I absolutely do not agree that the key work is done by a handful of people...unless hundreds or thousands of productive researchers (depending on the field) counts as a handful.
> I remember also reading some researchers that looked at dozens of fields and breakthroughs and found the same thing. All the real work in any breakthrough is done by just 2 or 3 people at most. so this is incorrect, what I said is actually very provable.
I still don't know how you're defining breakthroughs. I suspect that you are referring to how much work any of the (let's say 10) authors on a single paper did in that publication. Yeah, 1-3 people on any given paper sounds about right. But most/all of those (7-9) other folks are the key people on other publication. This does not mean that most researchers are not contributing to science (although how we allocate credit in authorship could certainly use some fixing).
> > > Regardless, this idea would be impossible in the first place at a government funded institution so why even bother mentioning it.
> > I'll point out that private money can go to diverse people at diverse institutions (including government funded universities).
> Yes, that is my point...? You are calling my comment a knee jerk reaction yet you have responded without seeming to understand any of it.
I read this part of your comment (and, in fact, all of it) as saying that public universities are inferior because people working there cannot pursue ideas that the _government_ deems unacceptable because they are government funded. Throughout my response, I'm pointing out that the public/private status of the university has little bearing on where researchers' funding comes from. Not only do most researchers at private universities get public funding, but there's nothing stopping researchers at public universities from receiving private funding.
I believe that you have a fundamentally incorrect understanding of how research and research funding (in the US) works.
Side note, looking at patents to identify #breakthroughs doesn't really work as
1. It requires quite a large investment which disfavors smaller institutions
2. The distribution of patents that actually make money is so incredibly skewed that university patents should considered such a bad investment, that it wouldn't be a good metric anymore.
Caltech is and always has been a private institution even when it was Throop College of Technology. To my knowledge the only public institution ever privatized in the US was Tulane (for reasons having to do with Jim Crow).
