Suggestion: Require a user to hit ENTER or SPACE to clear the word, even if it's a wrong word. Being able to see the letters laid linearly is useful to solving. Automated clearing of wrong words is unhelpful.
> I have never, ever – not even once – seen a graphical abstract that usefully “summarized the contents of an article”.
The author has never worked in chemistry. They are absolutely ubiquitous in scholarly journals for chemistry and I'd say that most people trained in chemistry often only read the graphical abstract when initially deciding whether the paper is worth a deeper read. Perhaps chemistry is a naturally visual field, given that we rely on visualizations of reactions and mechanisms from the very start of our university education.
The table of contents (TOC) graphic usually shows a key chemical structure (thus bonding connectivity, angles, elements, and electronic configurations), reaction mechanisms or conditions, models, or even core results as graphs. Now I do not claim to understand what is implied in every TOC graphic, however I can immediately see which branches of chemistry the article relates to faster than I can process the title, especially in a multidisciplinary chemistry journal.
That ability to categorize to identify relevance is a bigger issue in reading a multidisciplinary chemistry journal like the Journal of the American Chemical Society:
But graphical abstracts are still immensely useful within a subdiscipline such as organic chemistry, which I suspect were the early adopters of TOC graphics:
The better graphical abstracts tend towards simplicity, but it's a challenging task to distill a year or more of research into a single picture. And, unfortunately, graphic design is not a subject for which scientists generally receive additional training, despite it being a core element of digital communication.
A Bonferroni correction would be suitable. I usually see it used in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) that check to see if a trait or phenotype is influenced by any single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in a genome. So it's doing multiple testing on a scale of ~1 million.
> One of the simplest approaches to correct for multiple testing is the Bonferroni correction. The Bonferroni correction adjusts the alpha value from α = 0.05 to α = (0.05/k) where k is the number of statistical tests conducted. For a typical GWAS using 500,000 SNPs, statistical significance of a SNP association would be set at 1e-7. This correction is the most conservative, as it assumes that each association test of the 500,000 is independent of all other tests – an assumption that is generally untrue due to linkage disequilibrium among GWAS markers.
One persistent problem is that there isn't a Canadian English spelling option in most software with spellchecking functionality. Often we are forced to choose between US English and British English spelling defaults, when neither is quite right. I suspect that this was a stylistic choice not of Carney himself, but whoever proofread the document. There has been considerable erosion in Canadian orthography in of late, which has only been made worse with the widespread adoption of UFLI English language learning materials in our schools' elementary curricula, which emphasizes American spelling and pronunciation.
Not to cast shade, but it looks like you've essentially built a front-end for Desmos. It definitely makes things faster than trying to do it directly in Desmos.
Suggestion: Most of the fits that you've done assume that the errors are normally distributed. It would be worthwhile adding some graphical or numerical checks on that, rather than having goodness of fit or visual inspection be the only indication if this is a faulty assumption.
It gave made for a good quick check testing some data I had.
LaTeX was much easier with Overleaf for my PhD thesis. I still recommend that for friends starting a thesis or a book project. I even used it for recent book project with a friend.
As you noted, one needs a lot of fine tuning to meet publication rules & guidelines. Compared to a local LaTeX editor or Overleaf, this looks too generic to meet the needs I've had in the past. Sure, LaTeX can require a lot of tinkering, but PhD students ought be able to figure it out for themselves, whether through documentation, forums, or asking labmates.
> With this, there are no changes to our support policy for existing Chromecast devices, with continued software and security updates to the latest devices.
It bothers me when these company blogs link to the wrong page for finding the aforementioned policy. It feels so deceptive. I've seen it happen multiple times. Is it intentional?