Arxiv isn't the solution. But i think computer science conferences are. These have the same scientific rigour and standards in the review process as journals in other scientific fields, but don't price gouge. Yes, conferences are also a bit expensive, but you get a lot for your money, and they usally aren't out to make a big profit.
The peer review process in CS is pretty bad, especially in conferences with a single round of reviews. When you combine this with high rejection rates, peer review becomes more about finding excuses to reject a submission than about trying to improve it.
Conferences also don't work that well as publication venues, as they often require that one of the authors must attend the conference physically. And it's not as much about money than about visa policies and travel restrictions. Even in the 2000s and 2010s, when international travel was easy, people from non-Western countries could often not get visas to attend conferences. And today the situation is much worse.
I've been to three international conferences in the past year. One was held in Europe. People from Russia and Israel had to present remotely, the former due to an ongoing war and the latter due to an unexpected war. Another was in the US, and there were fewer Europeans than usual, as many were not willing to take the risk. And the third one was in Japan. People from China could not attend due to increased tensions. People from Israel were there, but they were worrying if they would make it home before the next war. (They made it, and the war started a day or two later.)
Conferences can be truly wonderful, but not a universal replacement for publishing.
If you think journals are expensive, try sending your whole lab to a conference in another country. That may not let you in. Where some of the attendees have to fill out paperwork before talking to a foreign national. (does that ever make for awkward small talk...)
For all their many faults, journals provide access to a really wide audience, and- in theory- make it possible to form connections who wouldn't be able to meet directly.
I don't understand why all teh child safety systems require age verification. Why not have a single setting on a smartphone that sends a 'child' flag to every single app or website, which then reacts accordingly? As long as you ensure that the browser can't be changed or modifed, it should be fine.
Agreed, but its more the fact that you get a lot more peace of mind tossing around, and otherwise treating without too much care, a cheaper device. Risk of drops, theft, forgetting etc. are pretty high for something that I use every day. But then I'm a broke PhD student, so perhaps my views will change one day.
My understanding (and I don't ahve a magsafe phone so maybe I'm wrong), is that a lot of the time, you need to buy a magsafe compatible case, i.e. one with magnets in it, to get it to work (assuming you want a case on your phone). But if so, then adding such a case to a 16e would also add back the magsafe functionality. So technically, having it on your phoneb doesn't actually make a difference right? Or am I missing something? I was considering getting the 16e because its discounted now.
They do! I'm in academia and they hvae really attractive programs to get foreign academics in, they have special programmes just for this purpose. I don't think a lot of people still want to move to China, due to concerns about language, culture, quality of life, authoritarianism etc. but the government is most certainly promoting it.
> But the point of this exercise isn't to make a deep friendship. It's practice.
Personally, that wasn't my takeaway. I thought it was more that you and the other person would get some joy out of the interaction. As in, conversations with strangers will be fun, even if you don't end up being friends.
I'm very conscious of this, perhaps more so due to being a brown immigrant, which is why I prefer to chat with men or older people. There's much less ambiguity there.
reply