List of Free Science Books(physicsdatabase.com)
physicsdatabase.com
List of Free Science Books
http://physicsdatabase.com/book-list-by-title/
8 comments
VIRUS/MALWARE ALERRT! It quickly prompts to to download malware disguised as a Firefox update. It's in a zipped folder
I attempted to check the list, but the website tried to get me to download malware disguised as a Firefox update.
here also. just going to the hn link produced this
https://ibb.co/vZGpDtf
https://ibb.co/vZGpDtf
What link did that happen with?
So I want to start off and say that there are some good books on this list and that there is a decent range of topics: biology, chemistry, mathematics, and physics. However, it is like 90% physics books and not a whole lot in the computer science or engineering fields which are massive. I own 20-30 textbooks in my very narrow sub-slice of a subsection of electrical engineering. This is a terrific start, but we need a whole lot more.
Wikipedia is completely inadequate in my field too.
Wikipedia is completely inadequate in my field too.
I'd actually be really interested to know what causes discrepancies in subject matter authorship in Wikipedia.
Physics, for example, is rife with very thorough articles, many of which are written for a graduate level. (Not everything is right everywhere, but a surprising amount for the volume.) Lots and lots of thoroughly explained equations.
Computer science is also very well documented, with numerous examples.
Materials science is very poor though, and with biology it seems to depend. Evolutionary theory seems popular but detailed taxonomy entries do not.
I'm curious why this is. Do professionals or enthusiasts in different fields really have such gaps in their willingness to contribute? In computer science, open source software could provide some prior art to convince people that Wikipedia is worth contributing to, but what about the rest?
Physics, for example, is rife with very thorough articles, many of which are written for a graduate level. (Not everything is right everywhere, but a surprising amount for the volume.) Lots and lots of thoroughly explained equations.
Computer science is also very well documented, with numerous examples.
Materials science is very poor though, and with biology it seems to depend. Evolutionary theory seems popular but detailed taxonomy entries do not.
I'm curious why this is. Do professionals or enthusiasts in different fields really have such gaps in their willingness to contribute? In computer science, open source software could provide some prior art to convince people that Wikipedia is worth contributing to, but what about the rest?
To be honest, I'm not sure I ever thought too and mine is sparse. I've repeatedly heard that contributing is a difficult process.