Agreed, as a counter/Devil's advocate point though, wouldn't what is being written by the reviewer be obvious whether or not it's just pettiness and other non-constructive criticism, versus something that was well considered?
To hopefully add to the discussion here. Not a scientist (professional), nor do i have a degree in anything (debt sucks), but AFA i see it, a reviewer shouldn't be evaluating a paper based on a popularity contest, but based scientific rigor and well reasoned approach that paper has. If the data is good, if their analysis is good, etc etc etc. On things that aren't dependent on being in a clique and/or popular.
That just smells of bad science, and make it not surprising the mainstream is "lagging behind". People actively stifling real scientific advancement, instead of letting it flourish.
I feel bad for people that do have that purity of purpose that either have to put up with that kind of BS, and people that have been victims of said behaviour.
I appreciate very much people who have it in their blood, their passion, like i have music and singing in my blood. You know you'll get someone who'll do the best job possible, and care about what sort of science is being done. Thank you for being you
A hash method would quickly run out of disk space before it could be used to verify every single file. Hence hashed b-tree for xfs (or is it jfs? I forget), and stuff like that.
A verify once used many times method is more efficient on a large scale.
I'm no maths expert, heck i don't even know calculus.
It's become lifestyle sales, of you buy this, you'll be this. They use that technique just about everywhere now. Used to be just cars and fashion. Like someone else said, emotional manipulation, narcissistic [my add].
Most people don't think with logic, but with emotions, so they're easy targets. Which makes me sad, because frankly no one deserves to get scammed and lied to.
I'm the type of person to appreciate direct and frank discussion. Many don't like this, especially people having power ambitions.