300 deaths seems like a very insignificant figure to be worked up over.
48 karma · joined August 23, 2017
I would just go talk to the professor teaching the class if you do not care about any documents saying you took the class. I have sat in on many different classes this way.
Things to note: -You may have some trouble on both extremes of class enrollment. Some courses require a minimum number of students to be enrolled for the class for it to be offered, so if there are not enough or bare minimum number of people taking the class you might experience some resistance. On the opposite end, for classes with long waitlists, you may not be able to sit in. -If you are not affiliated with the university, you may have trouble accessing course files that are locked behind a university authentication.
My advice if you want to go this route is to minimize your impact on the professor. Wanting special accommodations, such as special delivery of class materials or participating in homeworks/projects/exams may give some professors pause.
>I realise it's hard for FOSS advocates to understand this, because it's a fundamental flaw with the FOSS philosophy. The benefits are "obvious" to crusaders, but the objective reality is that large swathes of FOSS are full of casual or hobby code that barely works, has gaping security vulns, and/or is nowhere close to being robust enough for production.
>And the solution then is to not use FOSS, because then you don't have to take the internals on trust?
I think the point is to realize FOSS is not a utopia and has tradeoffs like everything else.
This is not exactly true. Inertial confinement fusion has conditions that are similar to stars. The engineering challenge for magnetically confined fusion to keep the low density plasma confined for long time durations for fusion.
For anyone interested in further reading, look up the Lawson Criterion.
I would also consider who you want your audience to be and the scope. If it is something that you want a non-expert to read, consider a blog post. On the other hand you may want to consider something like a patent if it is something you want to monetize. Lastly, consider peer reviewed journals if it is intended to be consumed by domain experts. All of this is from physics research perspective and may be different depending on your area.
It does seem like the pricing structure does not incentivize people actually getting jobs though. With a small pool of people (people looking for top finance jobs) it seems like the way to make the most money is to perpetually sell job seekers mock interviews, rather than prioritizing a job seeker to find a position on the first go. Is this a fair reading of the situation?
Academic journal papers are meant to be digested by experts in that topic, not the general population. It seems necessary to have a filter on registration to ensure that the platform is useful to these experts. You could imagine the restriction could be relaxed to research institution emails -or- a referral.
Even with a restrictive registration, the platform could still be useful to the a non-expert who is interested in the topic by reading the exchanges between experts.
"Because it is the only facility that can create the conditions that are relevant to understanding the operation of modern nuclear weapons, NIF is a crucial element of stockpile stewardship. NIF creates conditions—temperatures of 100 million degrees and pressures 100 billion times that of the Earth’s atmosphere—similar to those in stars and detonating nuclear weapons."
Quick thoughts from just reading the abstract: - There are very few facilities that do direct drive ICF (LLE in USA) -I am curious if the looked at hydro instabilities and preheating in this study
At the moment the only thing I can think of that are expensive services are also luxury services. Most people consider health care to be a basic service that should be open to those who need it, regardless of wealth.
It does seem like this baseline understanding does shift with progress though. For example our ancestors did not need a lot of education to push a plow, but more education will be needed with the continued elimination of physical labor.
I will rephrase the scenario slightly: The university collects tuition on PhD students to recoup costs in education. This can be for paying professors (who teach the courses and advise the students) to paying electricity the student uses when doing their research. Getting a PhD is a questionable decision in terms of finance for the student. Advisors are able to write into grants support to pay tuition for students. This makes it easier to entice talented students to work with said advisor and get a PhD, rather than joining the workforce straight out of undergrad.
>The only person who would read a journal paper and say that the the author has good writing skills is another academic. No one outside of the research community would look at a typical journal paper and claim that the writing skills demonstrated are "solid".
Scientific papers are written for people in the research community.
>3. Trying to explain how I arrived at an expression that took me weeks to derive was discounted and I was told to remove it by my advisor: As long as I wrote the starting point "any competent researcher should be able to derive it" (hint, probably half cannot).
This seems very context dependent.
>4. Writing any background so that someone who is not already an expert can understand was strictly forbidden - always guaranteed to get a complaint by some reviewer or another. If it appears in a textbook or in another paper, do not think about including it in your paper. As a result, the only people who can understand your paper fully are those who have happened to read the same textbooks and papers you have. A poor new graduate student may need to look through several papers and a book or two to get the background needed for one section of your paper, even though you could have explained it all in a page or two. But nope - they may have to go scan over a hundred pages of material to have an idea.
The poor new grad student should pour over multiple papers to get a solid foundation of the field. Most researchers do not want to read an epic tome to figure out how your research is novel.
I agree with your first two writing points though.