techphys_91

I believe this functionality is provided by SyncTeX. I'm sure it can be used in other editors, but it can be accessed from the right click menu in TeXstudio.

After reading your comment I found a report on the relative safety of public transport and individual cars [1]. It concludes that in the USA there are up to 60x fewer fatalities per billion passenger miles on public transport (20x for commuter rail, 30x for urban rail, 60x for bus). It also claims that crime rates on public transport are decreasing despite increasing passenger numbers and are lower than for individual cars (crimes include road rage, car theft etc). The results of crimes to individual drivers are apparently also more costly (e.g. a stolen car rather than a stolen phone).

Obviously I've only seen one report, but it may be that the perception of cars as being safer is incorrect.

[1] - https://www.nctr.usf.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/JPT17.4_...

You are right! I had read it as 65MB/s, not 65Mbits/s. Thank you.

I take your point, but for reference at 65MbPs you could transfer 10Gb in under 3 minutes. I would imagine that's more than sufficient for the majority of people.

Is this really an issue for the use case being described? Environment management is obviously a significant consideration for software developers who need to keep track of versions etc, but it sounds as if these users primarily want to use the fundamental numpy functions.

They could install one of the scientific python stacks (e.g. anaconda) or just install packages globally with pip.

You've portrayed amp as a positive change and basing search ranking on page load times as a negative change, while clearly some websites would be "downranked" with either system.

One could just as well portray "downranking slow pages" as "boosting fast pages". With the latter system developers would be encouraged to reduce filesizes and JS bloat on their existing pages. As a mobile, and desktop user, I would appreciate that.

This depends on the circumstances. If your personal photos are unaccessible then maybe it doesn't matter, but if it's your documentation for a mission critical bit of infrastructure then a few hours could be very significant. Somebody in that situation probably wouldn't agree with your assertion that "availability != reliability". If I can't access it when I need it then I wouldn't consider it reliable.

Usually a reference indicates that an author believes something to be true, but won't explicitly state their reasons. It isn't just a statement of where information comes from, but a justification for trusting that information. If the reference is from a reputable source, then it indicates that this belief is justified. If an author believes something to be true because they read it on wikipedia, then that belief probably isn't justified, because the reliability of wikipedia content is mixed.

Good quality information on wikipedia often refers back to published sources, and at the very least an author should check that source and refer to it, rather than wikipedia itself.

To me, the primary benefit of CDs over tapes was the ability to skip between songs easily and not having to rewind, it wasnt about quality (for me). The operation of a digital radio and an FM radio are very similar, especially once you've set up your favourite stations.

It isn't either-or though. Yes, we should do whatever we can do right now, but we should also be looking for ways we can do better in 50 years time.

While I agree, I'm not sure the funding for many of these problems should come from the budget of fundamental physics.

As a counter point, the gravitational wave discovery came about because of incremental upgrades to the detector. We don't know whats beyond that noise floor.

Maybe there are better ways to measure the tiny signals that hint at new physics, but the question is what we can do now. I would personally say its optimistic to assume we'll get a big breakthrough if we don't invest in the incremental upgrades.

This sounds reasonable, but we don't have the knowledge to be able to make a targeted experiment now, nor do we know whether we'll gain that knowledge within the next 100+ years. If we just stop, then we might not have the infrastructure or the people/ skills to make those experiments when the theory arrives.

Even if we didn't get a physics result from a high energy collider, we'd have a few more generations of skillful and motivated scientists/ engineers. Perhaps there are more efficient ways to achieve that, but I think "a waste" is perhaps an overstatement; we lose something either way.

The top energy of the accelerator might not be a good judge of how practical its technology will turn out to be. The maximum center-of-mass energy of CLIC is 3 TeV [1], far in excess of what would currently be considered practical. Nevertheless the technology developed for CLIC is now being looked at for providing very high-energy electron beams for cancer therapy [2]. Making something like the FCC isn't just a matter of making a bigger copy of the LHC, it has its own specific challenges [3,4].

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Linear_Collider

2 - Slide 7, https://indico.cern.ch/event/578818/contributions/2487012/at...

3 - http://fcc-ee.web.cern.ch/content/accelerator-challenges

4 - https://indico.fnal.gov/event/16753/contributions/39405/atta...

> If there is new physics to study let us keep the experiment going as is to study that for a generation or two.

The LHC was built between 1998 and 2008, but its design started in the 1980's. Many of the people who worked on the LHC at its early stages have either already retired, or will be expected to retire relatively soon. The FCC is still in its very early stages and similarly long timescales are predicted for its completion. Building and operating a huge, complex machine like this isn't something we can just stop for a generation or two and pick up where we left off. In my view, if we want to maintain the skills required to build these facilities we need to invest in new, large projects now.

That by itself doesn't count for much in this context. Web based technologies tend to move quickly while scientists are almost all using math libraries that were written in the 60/ 70's. To scientists these things are just tools and they prefer stability, reproducibility and minimal dependencies over using what's popular.

I don't think this could work for a few reasons.

1. Blogs aren't peer reviewed. Anything that is going to be referenced later needs to be reviewed by other people.

2. It is easy to change the content of a blog after the initial publication. This causes issues for referencing, and removes the "story" of how things were developed which is very important. Hundreds of ideas might end up being wrong before the right idea is found. We shouldn't be able to "delete" the ideas which were wrong from history. This is a part of the reason that papers don't reference websites (with some exceptions e.g. links to software tools or result databases). This is even taught to first year undergrads who try to reference blogs in their lab reports.

3. The journal acts as an independent trusted third party, blogs wouldn't have this. How do I know whether I can trust a blog owner?

There are probably more reasons. All in all I'd like a more diverse group of distributors but I don't think self-publication could replace journals.

Correct me if I am wrong, but https://riot.im/ seems to fit the description of a decentralised and federated team chat app.

This is my understanding as well. However even this requires you to have various google-parts installed on your phone. These can be fairly obtrusive with permissions and such.