Here’s a gift link you can use to read the full article, if the paywall is giving you any trouble: https://nyti.ms/3IXGobM
... and if the side-by-side examples aren’t working for you, try turning off your ad blocker and refreshing. (We’ll try to fix that now, but I’m not 100% sure we’ll be able to.)
Here’s a gift link you can use to read the full article, if the paywall is giving you any trouble: https://nyti.ms/3IXGobM
... and if the side-by-side examples aren’t working for you, try turning off your ad blocker and refreshing. (We’ll try to fix that now, but I’m not 100% sure we’ll be able to.)
Thanks for the link and wow! A very worthwile read. And this paragraph raised the alarm level even more for me:
> Things could be about to get even worse. Artificial intelligence might help detect duplicated data in research, but it can also be used to generate fake data. It is easy nowadays to produce fabricated photos or videos of events that never happened, and A.I.-generated images might have already started to poison the scientific literature. As A.I. technology develops, it will become significantly harder to distinguish fake from real.
This is actually one of the reasons I believe some foreign web commerce sites tend to do so well. There's a culture of filming everything. Film the product being made. Film the completed product in packaging. Film the completed product interacting with its environment and humans. Really adds to the "this product is real, and not a scam." Much larger barrier for falsification.
One of the things that surprised me was that she was identifying manipulated and duplicated images using her own eyes.
This could be done via software, and might catch more papers than the ~6k out of 100k that she did.
In the software world, there are tools for this, "software composition analysis". I worked at a company that got busted for violating GPL, and as part of settling the suit, all software had to be run through BlackDuck and all warning/issues found by the tool had to be resolved before the software could be released.
(NOTE: the software that violated GPL was from an acquisition)
The image where she found the duplications in the microscopy image demonstrates an absolutely unreal pattern recognition ability. I knew of her, but I hadn’t previously seen this essay
I recommend you put up convincing evidence that this is all that the NYT log about visitors because I don't believe that and it sounds a bit, well, glib to be honest. I don't read the nyt fwiw.
Moreover I recommend you have a slightly closer look if you are really holding up the nyt as a bastion of ethical behavior. But at least they stand up for Assange and journalism not being criminalised while doing stenography for the powerful (amongst some decent real reporting, some now being criminalized, away from the front page), right? I'm sure they'll balance their reporting about wikileaks by quoting someone who doesn't actively hate them any day now.
Anyway it should be noted that saying what you believe as you've done is the right thing and I endorse it even when defending the revenue a company that had $2.31 Billion on the books last year and has been a marker of inter-generational wealth and power for 170+ years to the family that owns it. I agree that what that looks like genuinely doesn't matter with regard to what you think is right in any ethical analysis. That goes unsaid too often imho.
>The NYT needs to make money to pay its Journalists.
Don't threaten me with a good time.
If j*urnos want money, they should choose to start acting in a way that deserves it at some point. In this case, if "The Paper of Record" needs to be regularly recorded from outside to be held to account for shoddy jobs and stitch-ups, exactly what service is it actually providing?
Working at a still-feels-new-to-me job as Graphics Director for Opinion at The New York Times. Our small team publishes arguments and guest essays supported by visual evidence, like these:
But I'm a believer in asking for help in order to cast a wider net. If you happen to stumble across an obscure-yet-newsworthy dataset, or have a strong feeling about a particular guest essayist that we should be approaching, or can't stop thinking about an argument that's itching you — pitches and tips are always welcome: [my hn username]@nytimes.com
This kind of interactive, bespoke content is one of the main reasons I subscribe to the Times. It feels like NYT truly embraced the concept of being able to tell stories and convey information in a completely novel and exciting format, and I find myself really immersed in these pieces all the damn time. It feels very much like you guys are _leading_ rather than following, which is damn impressive for such an old institution.
Hell, I remember last year's Christmas Cookies piece, which was just this lovely immersive slideshow of tight high resolution videos of different stages of the cookie making process and just thinking "this is just _good_ content."
But this stuff is also powerful because of its ability to inform people in a way visually that more traditional text and even older illustrative modalities would've fallen short with. This deep-dive, guided tour, expando-driven approach is just... awesome. Keep up the great work!
Just in case you happen to know the answer: How does taking tree samples (as in your third link) not harm the tree? It seems inevitable that it would do so, at least intuitively.
My understanding — relayed through one degree of separation from Daniel Griffin, the dendrochronologist who wrote the piece — is that the core samples are very long and thin, and care is taken not to injure the tree and to allow it to heal rapidly.
Not having read the much more authoritative response above (or any such), I'll foolishly offer the one fact about trees I recall from boy scouts or outdoor school:
The core of a tree is much less alive than the bark—so much less, in fact, that if you walk in a circle around a tree scraping off a thin strip of bark and make sure to stop where you started, the tree will die.
Having googled this just to be sure, I also learned that trees can only lose up to about a quarter of a circumference of bark (in the fashion describe above) before facing mortal peril.
and how Alan Greenspan went from writing 'Gold and Economic Freedom'[0] to pushing low interest rates that would be rad.
I'm not actually a gold-standard supporter, but given the huge shift what average people can expect economically it would be nice to have this addressed by someone other than the conspiracy crowd.
I work in tech for public media and am it's almost disheartening to know what kind of resources other publications have. We have people spread across everything at once. Do you work for the technology department or for the editorial department?
I've been following the NYTimes tech development from a distance for almost 20 years. A couple of things I've picked up:
1) it helps to be the biggest
2) it helps to have rabid boosters with reputational stakes themselves, like Edward Tufte.
3) the tech group maintains the framework, but each section owns their own section layouts.
4) the tech group made a big splash ... eh, sometime between 2005 and 2009 if I recall, with a very early progressive framework. I wish I could recall the details, but it was spicy when it first landed, like "Wow, that's genius, and it looks so good."
Thank you for making JavaScript a somewhat palatable language. Countless millions of us have to write JavaScript to accomplish the daily drudgery and it's in part to your contributions and impeccable sense of style that it's at least somewhat enjoyable.
People probably think my praise is overblown, but if it wasn't for you I'd probably be using wasm to escape JS and the fight against flash would have been for naught.
On the first link scrolling is extremely slow on Firefox -- but curiously the problem doesn't appear on the other two.
(Also -- completely OT, sorry -- but science doesn't have a "photoshopping" problem as much as a fraud problem, as the author herself makes clear in the body of the text:
> With a sense of unease about how much bad science might be in journals, I quit my full-time job in 2019 so that I could devote myself to finding and reporting more cases of scientific fraud.)
I started reading through these comments expecting a tall wave of negativity, and was surprised to see such a warm wash of mixed and fond memories from the "bad old days" when ES3 and IE ruled the roost.
Full disclosure: I haven’t used it myself much since ~2012 or so, and modern JavaScript now contains many of the most important features that CoffeeScript offered at the time .... Although they did screw some things up (IMHO): null-vs-undefined in default arguments, super as a parent reference instead of a direct function call, optional parens for single-arguments arrow functions (Prettier agrees!), no shared semantics between arrow and normal functions, that class syntax only supports methods and not data as properties, and so on...
When all is done and dusted, I hope that CoffeeScript can be looked back on with affection as a little experiment that showed surprising vigor, one that — with no corporate backing and zero financial support — spread by word of mouth through the web community of the early 2010s, and helped fuel the fire to get JavaScript moving and evolving as a language again.
As a side note — and I write this without bitterness — I do find it a bit strange that extremely well-resourced companies like Dropbox, GitHub, CircleCI, Trello, Airbnb (and many, many more) would write so many hundreds and hundreds of thousands of lines of CoffeeScript without ever attempting to contribute changes or fix the issues that they wanted to fix. It’s open source! They probably would have been able to quickly and cheaply make most of the changes they wanted.
> As a side note — and I write this without bitterness — I do find it a bit strange that extremely well-resourced companies like Dropbox, GitHub, CircleCI, Trello, Airbnb (and many, many more) would write so many hundreds and hundreds of thousands of lines of CoffeeScript without ever attempting to contribute changes or fix the issues that they wanted to fix. It’s open source! They probably would have been able to quickly and cheaply make most of the changes they wanted.
This is the heart of a really important issue in OSS that affects everything good and bad about the scene.
There are companies that pretty much waste millions on poorly managed projects but won't donate the few thousand needed to make a lot of OSS projects succeed while still using the software.
It doesn't help that a lot of the culture just accepts fragile dependencies (who cares if this semi-crucial dependency is managed by the equivalent of newman from jurrasic park), and that a lot of the biggest OSS projects are usually made by people working at some big company. Maybe copyleft licenses would've prevented some of these issues, but I am not sure individual users like those restrictions even if, in some ways, it would benefit the community as a whole.
Its absolutely disgraceful how little financial support some really commonly used libraries get.
Reading this, I was intending to say that Jeremy Ashkenas should be publicly lauded for efforts in driving JavaScript forward. Then I saw your username.
Not to gush, but the profound difference Backbone, Underscore, and CoffeeScript have made to modern JavaScript development cannot be understated.
Thanks for all your efforts. They were exciting times indeed.
Thank you as well Jeremy, for helping us realize how useful JS could be with a proper stdlib in underscore, or how JS could be evolved with Coffeescript.
Part of the magic of JS in those days was observing how one OSS project (see: underscore, async, Q, Backbone, Node, Babel, Browserify, etc) could have such a profound impact on the JavaScript ecosystem.
Thank you so much for CoffeeScript! I bet on CoffeeScript in 2016 and surely would bet again in 2020, it is still great for those who want to focus on compact and clear coding. Your creation helped unknown developers like myself to actually find frontend coding bearable.
After seeing video with you talking about CoffeeScript design aspects ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DspYurD75Ns ), it was clear that CoffeeScript was created by genius. I think the explanation why big corps did not contribute to your work is simple: they just could not. CoffeeScript was perfect from the start. It was ahead of time when it appeared and now it is still ahead of time for features you mention. It is like SQL or functional programming or algebra. Often best tool to get things done, but not for everyone.
If you ever read this, may I please ask one question? Imagine universe where all software is commercial. How much would CoffeeScript cost to its users?
I was a big fan of coffescript, it was way better than what ES3 offered. I did a small startup where everything was coffee, frontend and node backend.
The biggest issue was a little spacing between things would change meaning of program and things could go wrong. I lost some early customers because of reliability. That was a hard lesson and I learn the value of static typing.
Typescript is way more verbose but the lesson is you’re writing code so other people can use and improve it. That could also be future you. Dropdown and squiggly driven development that vscode offers is unbeatable as dev experience.
But coffeescript, like actionscript (Flash) has a special place in my heart. They were the big ideas back then.
I never bought into anything that goes far away from ecmascript. You need to think that any time you distance yourself from the real code, you make a compromise.
Coffescript has very little improvements at a cost (different syntax)
With typescript, it's also a compromise, but the benefit you get it's really good, types.
That's why moving to typescript makes sense, while coffescript not so much.
The post you're replying to isn't trying to get you to move to Coffeescript today. It's saying Coffeescript "helped fuel the fire to get JavaScript moving and evolving as a language again."
... and if the side-by-side examples aren’t working for you, try turning off your ad blocker and refreshing. (We’ll try to fix that now, but I’m not 100% sure we’ll be able to.)