The original thought on copyright was that facts should not be copyrightable. This should be extended to all science and all non-fiction. Also the original thought was that parody should not be copyrightable. Most fiction is formula-based, so not too original there, either.
No, the author(s) of the journal article still retain their copyright in most cases. This is about access to the articles without having to pay a charge to read it.
Now they are removing the 12-month post-publication embargo period for peer-reviewed manuscripts that result from federally funded scientific research. So, 12 months sooner.
But autofill doesn't work on non-Safari browsers on your Mac. Yet I truly love Keychain so much in my Apple ecosystem I go to the trouble of exporting my passwords every few weeks to Chrome.
There are many, many, many pharmacy drugs that can stop suicidal thoughts fast and don't have the track record of the "modern antidepressants". Long, long, long track records. Small dose lithium and lamotrigine come to mind right away. But how they work--nope, not clear. Okay, we'll agree it's not serotonin, how does that help us? Would it help if American doctors could prescribe 3 weeks for a spa holiday like European doctors? Maybe, for low-level depression, but not for suicidal thoughts, that just won't cut it. There is bipolar I and bipolar II and so big differences. Schizophrenia, big difference. But again, knowing that it isn't serotonin, that's nice, now what?
Nonsense. As a non-profit founded in 1926 with 50 testing labs and partnerships with outside labs, the proof is in the test after test after test after test that is unbiased and, more importantly, the criteria and testing methods are always available and reproducible! So when you don't agree with their rankings you can at least agree that there methods are clear, not based on SEO, not based on spam, not based on money, and pro-consumer.
The literature is actually quite robust on the benefits of probiotics. Take a look at the different peer-reviewed studies just on this list of products sold in the U.S. [1]. The quality of these studies is quite high, and highly scrutinized.
So, now we can't use Teams to have the "water-cooler" moments that supervisors claim we need, but really we are having them on Signal or IOS and they just can't measure that. Organizations really, really, really hate transparency.
Reminds me of the Copernic Agent (not their current desktop search product). Are there any other metasearch engines that download the results these days rather than stuff everything in the browser?
It's about etiquette, not about your time. Remember what Emily Post says about hello[1], "On very informal occasions, it is the present fashion to greet an intimate friend with “Hello!” This seemingly vulgar salutation is made acceptable by the tone in which it is said. To shout “Hullow!” is vulgar, but “Hello, Mary” or “How ’do John,” each spoken in an ordinary tone of voice, sound much the same. But remember that the “Hello” is spoken, not called out, and never used except between intimate friends who call each other by the first name."
Saying "hello" is not some devious plan to interrupt you, but rather a thing that humans do rather than act like a bot.
Hacker News is more about having a discussion of, usually, tangentially topics to the link someone has posted. But if you wish to discuss some of Caplan's theories such as "“Conventional education mostly helps students by raising their status,” let's analyze that... (1) the post-secondary education in various countries differs a lot, (2) there are countries where "status" means a full bureaucracy class, other countries where it means ability to get a license such as a veterinary license, other countries where status means certain religious or tribal affiliations, or countries like the U.S. where status means graduating from certain colleges but not others (3) most studies conclude that education increases the macroeconomic productivity of an economy whether or not it raises individual statuses, (4) there are actually advantages to government raising the statuses of more individuals in some countries (such as having a stable middle class that isn't reactionary to politicians), etc.
But, if you read my earlier point, arguing these things through a book and spreadsheets is what think-tanks do, not what scientists do.
But in practice, spreadsheets are usually used for "brainstorming" in a research question to pose some possibilities, while jupyter is used for creating an executable paper for an actual scientific discussion.
The danger in both spreadsheets and in computational notebooks is you can include a lot of mathematically true and/or statistically consistent conclusions that are filled with assumptions that haven't been correlated or even agreed to by voters or policymakers.
For anyone making a bold claim like post-high-school education doesn't promote future earnings, their burden is to come up with macroeconomic examples or even models that are consistent. Just writing a book and a spreadsheet doesn't cut it, which is another way to say, they aren't making their claim in an educated way that modern economists use.
Um, there actually are peer-reviewed studies which address things like running and health. For example, "The Influence of Running on Lower Limb Cartilage: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis," Sports Medicine (2022) 52:55–74 [1]
One conclusion is "Results suggest that cartilage recovers well from a single running bout and adapts to repeated exposure. Given that moderate evidence indicates that running does not lead to new lesions, future trials should focus on clinical populations, such as those with osteoarthritis."
My understanding is the evidence for walking is much stronger than running given the assumption that an "active lifestyle" is a goal, rather than just living longer.
But people should be helped to draw their own conclusions with annotations where every time some crazy idea is repeated it is automatically flagged with "This idea has repeatedly been debunked by 37 national societies of medicine and 19 meta analyses of 2,000 peer-reviewed studies with a quality deemed high or superb," etc.
I love your counter examples. In moving beyond the famous Shannon-Weaver model of communication[1], the one with the "signal," "noise," "channel" that network folks love, researchers settled on the importance of "feedback." I would say that these popular stories that become part of "mainstream culture" spread through comedy, song, news, bars, and repeated viewings on television to reinforce and strengthen the "mainstream" understanding of what these things mean and whether nuance is important when talking about them.