crazy_horse's comments

I went to Google Scholar and googled for articles from the top journal this year, picked a random article, the entire text is available.

https://en.x-mol.com/paper/article/1429645420640583680

I know that is a single article and I get your larger point. It's very much a field by field issue, in my field (I've been told it isn't a real science by HN, so no thanks sharing), I can't imagine me or the profs I know taking people seriously if they aren't making their stff available.

It sounds like to me to advance this debate, people could provide examples of journals that are regularly cited and their papers aren't easily accessible in some way.

I work in the social sciences where we have lots of overlap with other social sciences, stats, and data science, machine learning.

Those are the domains I know and in those domains anyone born after 1970 knows that if they want to distribute their work they put it on their site or a number of free archives.

Could you provide examples?

It's hard to overstate how tired the entire argument is.

Doctorow feels like tweetstorms are an acceptable means of getting communication across (yikes), so maybe some things are just unbridgable.

HN sounds like cranks about this. In my podunk region 2 school I have access to all the journals I want, always have as a student. I rarely need that because it's easier to Google Scholar and then just grab the paper off of someone's site, which pretty mch everyone does these days.

Some of the commenters here could have written a phd in the last decade about this topic but I don't think it's the massive stopper of progress that people think it is.

Billions of dollars! Wish we didn't have to bust my ass to get a portion of that, but keep beating up on the academics.

I feel like you are providing an example.

I came to this thread to read a thread about videogame stories. Imagine my surprise (wait, this is HN), when the first thing that I see is your comment about videogames that isn't really about videogames it's a way for you to sell your book, which you admit you are shameless about.

But I just wanted to reed about videogames. If you were more subtle, if you knew how tll me a story without telling me that you are telling a story, then it's not wasting my time and I can get what I came for as well as what you want me to learn.

Why work for Bezos up until 2020 if you care?

Kind of feel bad for my ambiguity....I bought it to make VR content with.

It's very hit or miss.

I have a Vive from 2016. I purchased the Q2 with the intent of doing dev work with it and I expected it to be a big improvement. I mean I read reviews like yours and I saw what it was capable of.

Don't get me wrong, it's a big deal that it is now standalone (the Vive very much feels lke the matrix), but the visual fidelity hadn't incresed prceptibly in that time (as far as I can tell) and the headset itself is still too heavy.

The higher sales are interesting but it's at like 6 million units worldwide? The most popular consoles were over a hundred million. We're not even into a console that everyone knows about but only that weird dude has like the Xbox yet.

I can see a future where these googles are 3x the resolution, even cheaper, and as light as actual glasses, and that day we'll be at mass market, probably before it.

But if you made me work in VR for any length of time at all as of now, I'll quit because the quality is not there yet. I'd rather play the latest games on cheap but incredible monitors anyway.

Give it six weeks. You might still be entralled. I sold mine, I don't want to build anything for that guy.

I know Vince Gilligan did his research prior to Breaking Bad but st strikes me how on the nose it was. BB came out in 2008 and must have been in production a few years earlier but the increase in actual purity pretty much matches the show coming out.

I also recall the show depicting meth users having all those problems - Jesse is paranoid the missionaries are bikers, there's that guy digging a hole in his front yard, Spooe and his head, etc

Seems like the drug was fucking people up way prior to the last few years in fiction.

I don't want to say of course it is, but of course it is.

It's an environment full of smart and hungry and competitive people. There are politics, yes, but you can damn well choose to avoid them, especially if you offer value.

Nobody in any industry presents all of the warts and difficulties of getting to a solution. If you wanted to hear about six years of failed experiments, I've got lots of time, but I feel like you don't want to hear it and neither do the people reading and writing research papers.

You'll find that outside of the superstar schools, the smaller schools (certain depts) are staffed with brilliant people. They'll tell you about the nuances of academia if you're a normal person but they're not going to show up on HN where people say what they do is worthless, so people get warped views of what the majority of it is.

I have worked in academia. I can't think of a single prof like that in my department. They exist, but that's not why people choose to spend decades of their life in poor paying jobs.

Kyrie Irving - flat-earther, anti-vaxxer. To some people both are ridiculous positions. Conspiracy thoerists tend to groupp together and tend to pick up additional beliefs

There was a secret military installation. The conspiracy was that they were doing creepy deepy stuff there, only a fraction of which was true.

But conspiracy theorists count that as a win.

Why do you use biased language? Yes,there were lots of people in the media that dealt with Epstein. Epstein's arrest was public in what 2008 or 2009, you could find information about it on wikipedia in 2015. Now there have been multiple documentaries about it. That's why Gates acting all dumb about it years later is dumb.

The conspiracy theorists that point at everything as child abuse weren't right just because they found one of the most public instances of it. It doesn't make their other dozens of claims true.

What kind of comments does HN select for?

Do you really expect useful discussion when you say stuff like this? Normal academia isn't like that.

What evidence suggests that the entire party is being investigated? Who is hiding that?

This is gross. It's gross because you're right, there are a lot of things that politcians get a pass on. That's not okay.

But you are making ridiculous absurd statements. No, not everyone in the other part is getting investigated. No, not anyone who claimed interference is getting threatened. How would that be possible if up until the last week (and going well into the future), we're discussing this stuff?

This absurd hyperbole ruins whatever valid points you have because you look like the kind of commenter that HN was supposedly above, but for some reason dang decided to bump this explicitly political bs (with the expected political comments) to the front page. We didn't even try to get a better source than fox news?

If you care about this stuff (and you should), you need to disconnect it from political stuff. You're jumping in bed with people that lie.

He was removed when he wouldn't just give up power like a normal loser, but he sure as hell prodded them for 4 years and it sure as hell got him elected.