cetacea

Yeah, so the "law" as stated in the Wikipedia article is not correct.

I'm not opposed to being served ads. I just think taking an essay about counterculture and serving it with ads is highly ironic.

And I didn't say readtext is a startup. I said it's hosted by a startup (vrocket). Also ironic.

"Who will be the next CEO of Apple?"

"No."

Someone didn't think this law through...

An essay about technology counterculture, now hosted by a tech startup on a website that serves ads.

I have no idea who "they" or "our" refers to, or what "sudden jump" you're talking about.

> Try approaching them and saying: Hi! I would like to reserve two billion DOIs :)

If you've already registered a prefix with them (say it's 10.8888), then you have an essentially unlimited namespace of possible suffixes for forming DOIs. Representing two billion DOIs requires only 6 suffix digits in base 36.

What exactly is so difficult about this?

We already have the DOI system. Why is a new system needed?

> Is there an actual model of light based on his work?

Yes: classical electromagnetism. It's an outrageously successful model of how light behaves. It doesn't predict photons, but that doesn't mean it's not an "actual" model of light.

You can include photons by taking Maxwell's equations and doing something called second quantization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantization_of_the_electromag...). That gets you quantum effects that can explain behaviors like shot noise, but it misses things like photon-photon scattering. (Nonetheless, I would still call this an "actual" model of light.)

Then there is full-on quantum electrodynamics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics), but that doesn't capture certain behaviors, like what happens to photons at the electroweak scale. But I would still call QED an "actual" model of light.

Even better, p-values should not be used at all. If I have data in hand, I want to use it to find out the probability that my hypothesis is true. But p-value analysis requires me to instead ask a different question that I don't really care about, involving whether my data are consistent with the null hypothesis.

Everything is just so much more sensible if you allow yourself to assign probabilities to hypotheses, rather than assuming a hypothesis from the outset and computing opaque statistics relating to your data.

If Markdown were around (and widely used) when MediaWiki was written, I imagine there would have been a push to use it as the markup language for MediaWiki.

I don't see MediaWiki markup as byzantine or archaic, except for whatever half-assed LaTeX processor they use. It seems to only recognize some random subset of features from various ams packages. Why they don't just use a fully-featured TeX distro is beyond me.

Wikipedia's talk page workflow (indenting to start a new comment, then inserting a special image to wrap around to the margin once too many indents have accumulated) is moronic.

And trying to click on "About" in the sidebar returns a 403 for me. What a tease!

I think most other people use a single M to mean million, and k for thousand.

Can't we just use SI prefixes or spell the numbers out instead of using some random alternate convention?

> $40+mm

40 million million dollars?

You can install custom CSS somewhere in your .jupyter directory. Of course, this feature is undocumented and different from the analogous (documented) ipython feature.

> Cosmologists are people who publish papers that can't be tested

Once again you are wrong. Mather, Smoot, Perlmutter, and Riess are all cosmologists. Their Nobel prizes were awarded for results in cosmology.

Your idiosyncratic redefinition of the word "cosmology" is completely at odds with how the word is used in the physics community.

> I'm not sure anything has actually been figured out by a professional Cosmologist

You are 100% wrong. Several Nobel prizes have been awarded for seminal results in cosmology, like observation of the cosmic microwave background and the discovery of accelerated metric expansion.