The usual approach is to provide grants for something else that the municipality wants/needs, but make them conditional on the municipality acting in the desired manner.
In my opinion, archive the data that was actually gathered and the code's intermediate & final outputs. Write the code clearly enough that what it did can be understood by reading it alone, since with pervasive software churn it won't be runnable as-is forever. As a bonus, this approach works even when some steps are manual processes.
Pretty much yes. Critical analysis is a necessary skill that needs practice. It's also necessary to be aware of the intricacies of work in one's own topic area, defined narrowly, to clearly communicate how one's own methods are similar/different to others' methods.
Even in group 1, when I go back to a project that I haven't worked on in years, it would be helpful to be able to query the build system to list the dependencies of a particular artifact, including data dependencies. I.e., reverse dependency lookup. Also list which files could change as a consequence of changing another artifact. And return results based on what the build actually did, not just the rules as specified. I think make can't do this because it has no ability to hash & cache results. Newer build systems like Bazel, Please, and Pants should be able to do this but I haven't used them much yet.
Patents sort of work that way, except that even people who didn't look at your work owe you their future profits.
I think I'm hoping for a result that anyone can train any model on any content, regardless of that content's copyright status. Mostly because I want AI assistant tools to be as effective as possible, to be able to access the same information I can access. But however it turns out there will probably be some unintended consequences.
The problem with gold OA is the proliferation of low-quality spam, and the recommended remedy is to both restore exclusivity (raise the barrier to entry) without supporting excessive (monopolistic, exploitative) journal subscription fees. The article's recommendation to build up society journals has a decent chance of accomplishing this. It won't prevent spam from getting published, but the only essential aspect is to keep the spam easily identifiable (e.g., published by MDPI) so it can be safely ignored. The www seems to facilitate the spam business model so I don't think the spam will go away entirely.
Assuming you want to get rid of the fees entirely: people will have to look at the spam and divide it into more and less spammy. Others will have to do the same with the less spammy and so on. Eventually there is room for more accomplished moderators Until those with the greatest prestige filter down to a tiny sub set. You assign weights to the experts so that with each level of review the good half raises in rank much more than the previous round.
At first you do it by committee but eventually the rating for each scientists can be derived from the importance of their publication(s).
I don't think it needs to be free or even cheap. Subscriptions to the archives (and research data) could be more expensive and the money can be divided over the reputation points.
Free access can be earned by the sweat of your brow, publish worthy papers and do reviews that closely match other reviewers.
Universities should be able to publish enough quality material to get paid. Have the grownups pay for juniors education again. It was a good idea back then it is a good idea now.
> So IMO, the first reform to conduct is to turn clinical researchers into real scientists. That won't be easy.
Mostly, there are not enough hours in a life to be both a good doctor and a good scientist. The few MD-PhDs who give equal weight to both areas are both brilliant and extremely driven. Multidisciplinary teams seem to have a better chance at success.
I guess if the scientific education was done early (undergraduate at the latest) dual training could work. Once medical training and practice starts there isn't a lot of time left over. And early / non-practicing science education, for whatever reason, doesn't seem to be very effective.
It often is arbitrary. Also, the rules as enforced by the awardee institution often differ from the funding agency's written rules. The people who are responsible for reviewing purchasing are only responsible for making sure no rules are broken, not with producing anything, so they tend to interpret the rules conservatively and just say "no" if they're not sure. The IT department also may try to block anything they didn't pick even if the funding agency would allow it. (Speaking from experience with university bureaucracy.)
It's not out of concern for cost-benefit ratio (overhead from parts selection and assembly) or anything like that. Getting something useful done is solely the researcher's problem.
Yes, the general spirit is good but the clinical trial stage is the very end of a long process. The clinical trial the most visible part of getting a new cancer treatment to patients, but the bulk of delay in developing a new treatment is waiting for the basic science. More aggressive clinical trials could save ~ years. More aggressive education and fundamental research could save ~ decades. Can't run a trial on a treatment that doesn't exist yet.
I also have XM4's and they worked fine on Arch after addressing two problems:
Do you dual boot? Different OS's on the same computer will generate different pairing keys even though they share the same MAC, and this will cause connection issues. Usually that's reported as having to re-pair every time you switch OS's though.
I've also experienced audio skipping & popping using a dual WiFi/Bluetooth card that were eliminated by disabling WiFi. Apparently the Linux driver was faulty and allowed some interference; the card worked fine on Windows.
Thank you for linking the SE thread! So this is the reason I've been having so much trouble with my Bt devices recently. I've used Linux as my daily for years but have also started dual-booting Windows as of a few weeks ago, and I've had to re-pair every single time I'd switch systems. I just chalked it up to just generic Bluetooth issues.
reply