The wordpress post is old, and so the author didn't have the chance to include my favorite method:
Every Author as First Author: (pdf) https://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.01393
3,925 karma · joined May 20, 2008
Every Author as First Author: (pdf) https://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.01393
The only way I've found is not intuitive: Extreme health consciousness, both in diet and exercise. I pretty much had to give up alcohol as well, just a couple of glasses of wine and I would experience these weird name/word outages.
Putting in a plug for MIT OCW 8.962 [1]. I also had this itch, and was able to find time during the pandemic to work through the course (at about 1/2 speed). But true to what others are saying, life intruded for the last few lectures, so still have some items on my todo list. I thought Scott Hughes laid out the math with terrific clarity, with just the right amount of joviality. It is not for everyone, but if you have a suitable background it may turn "scratch an itch" into the obsession that it has done to me.
And to make the obligatory on-topic comment: I'm 61yo. Now get off my lawn.
[1] https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/8-962-general-relativity-spring-...
So again, it strikes me as a huge opportunity, especially for someone who just does the basics.
Really poor design.
I couldn't disagree more, but perhaps the time I was there (late 90s) was different.
Kind of a strange statement. Fairchild took the "traitorous eight" from Shockley Semiconductor, which was founded by William Shockley, who famously co-invented the transistor at Bell Labs (and who named the "traitorous eight" as such.)
So while Fairchild "didn’t operate anything like a basic research lab", its co-invention of the IC was not unrelated to having a large amount of DNA from Bell Labs.
Then they're not experts on prob and stats in medicine, and you shouldn't choose them to guide policy making when prob and stats in medicine are relevant. The alternative is to choose those who aren't experts in prob and stats in medicine, which results in policy bred from ignorance of the relevant math and science.
Choosing people who are ignorant of the relevant math and science over those who are knowledgeable is certainly one way to make policy, and it seems that is what folks want, so I guess we'll see how well that it works out.
"Political decision" as a euphemism for allowing non-experts to decide how to minimize deaths? The same non-experts who couldn't even get the Monty Hall problem right, let alone the complexity of medical probability and statistics of [false | true] [positives | negatives] in Bayesian scenarios?
Good luck with that.
Vaccines are on the docket for cancellation, which to be fair, will last only as long as a swath of the population sees their kids incapacitated by some completely preventable virus infection. But do we really have to go through an epidemic (again!) to understand that the science of vaccines is solid?
There is such a thing as settled science.
There is also such a thing as people too uneducated and non-expert to understand what science is settled.
There should be such a thing as not listening to non-experts about settled science.
Otherwise: A nice website!
> I thank Stephen Wolfram for an enjoyable conversation about this review;
Anyway, I do not mean to detract from the accomplishment -- and I liked the product! So I hope you take the above feedback/nitpicking in the spirit it is intended.
But the fact I wanted to save a result is a good sign. Nice work!
The old dinosaurs on HN are snickering about the word "manual" here, having blown days pawing through the library stacks.
It was working and still the source of water for the farm house until they passed away (about a decade ago). There was always the rhythm of the ram in the background.
I did not know this, and I wish it were better publicized.
> Can I use gasoline to cook spaghetti faster?