> Unfortunately, over the years, arXiv has become something like a "venue" in its own right, particularly in ML, with some decently cited papers never formally published and "preprints" being cited left and right.
This has been a common practice in physics, especially the more theoretical branches, since the inception of arXiv. Senior researchers write a paper draft, and then send copies to some of their peers, get and incorporate feedback, and just submit to arxiv.
And this is really how it should be. Honestly the only thing I want arxiv to do is become more like open review. Allow comments by peers and some better linking to data and project pages.
It works for physics because physicists are very rigorous. So papers don't change very much. It also works for ML because everyone is moving very fast that it's closer to doing open research. Sloppier, but as long as the readers are other experts then it's generally fine.
I think research should really just be open. It helps everyone. The AI slop and mass publishing is exploiting our laziness; evaluating people on quantity rather than quality. I'm not sure why people are so resistant to making this change. Yes, it's harder, but it has a lot of benefits. And at the end of the day it doesn't matter if a paper is generated if it's actually a quality paper (not in just how it reads, but the actual research). Slop is slop and we shouldn't want slop regardless. But if we evaluate on quality and everything is open it becomes much easier to figure out who is producing slop, collision rings, plagiarist rings, and all that. A little extra work for a lot of benefits. But we seem to be willing to put in a lot of work to avoid doing more work
I don't agree actually that is how it should or can work for everyone. Senior researchers produce good quality research, and they have a network of high quality peers built over decades. Both those are necessary for them to reach out and ask for feedback, and get genuine and high quality feedback.
Junior researchers don't have these typically. They also benefit more from anonymous feedback, which enables the reviewers to bluntly identify wrong or close to wrong results. So I think open journals should continue to exist. They fill an essential role in the scientific ecosystem.
Mostly I'm fine with journals and conferences but I think it's the prestige that has fucked everything over.
I want reviews of my papers! But I want reviews by people who care. I don't want reviews by people who don't want to review. I don't want reviews by people who think it's their job to reject or find flaws in the work. I want reviews by people who care. I want reviews by people who want to make my work better. I want reviews by people who understand all works are flawed and we can't tackle every one in every paper (the problem isn't solved, so there's always more!).
So low bars. Forget the prestige, citation count, novelty, and all the bullshit and just focus on the actual work and that the act of publishing is about communicating. Publishing is the main difference between private and public labs. Private labs do fine research, without all the formal review. It's just that nobody learns about it. They don't give back to the community.
So my ideal system still has reviewers, journals, and conferences but I think we'd get along just fine without them. I believe that if we can't recognize that then we can't use these other tools to make things better.
They aren't fundamental tools needed to make the process work, they're tools that can make the process work better. But I'm not convinced they're doing a good job of that right now.
You could imagine separating the "publishing" part, which really should just be open with minimal anti-spam etc, from the "this was reviewed by a trusted group of people so you should give it more consideration" part. You could do the second without it being attached to the publishing.
I think your phrasing was good. A lot of people conflate a work being published is equivalent to peer reviewed and that "peer reviewed" means "correct".
I think when you think about publishing as what it actually is, researchers communicating to researchers, what I said makes much more sense. I do think formal review does help reduce slop but I think anyone who has published anything is also very aware of how noisy the system is and how good works get rejected or delayed because they aren't "novel" enough.
Honestly, my ideal system is journals with low bars. We forget this prestige bullshit and silliness of novelty (often it's novel to niche experts but not to others) and basically check if it looks like due diligence was done, there's not things obviously wrong, no obvious plagiarism, and then maybe a little back and forth to help communicate. But I think we've gotten too lost in this idea of needing to punish fast and that it has to be important. Important to who? Tons of stuff is only considered important later, we've got a long track record of not being so great at that. But we have a long track record of at least some people working on what we later find out is important.
Don't forget about William Wootters, who also did significant work in the 1980s on quantum information. Most notably with Zurek, he proved the quantum no-cloning theorem in 1982. This result is at the same foundational level as energy conservation or constancy of light.
He was also on the Teleportation discovery in 1993.
Asher Peres told me that Bill Wootters should be given 99% of the credit for the teleportation discovery (and this is in the context that most of us around at the time presumed the majority of the credit should go to Peres and Wootters who had already been discussing publicly very similar stuff).
> eg. I've had my parents say the "taste" of food is worse on electric instead of gas stovetops
If you are using the cooking technique of "bhunai" [1], which is quite common in South Asian cooking, there is a large difference in food quality you can make with an electric and with a gas stove. Gas stoves are able to provide higher heat at consistent levels, and you can tilt the pot to concentrate heat in one corner to intensify the cooking. So I don't disagree with your parents.
[1] bhunai is when you cook meat with spices at very high heat while rapidly stirring it. I think the willingness to burn the spices during this process is what sets this apart from similar techniques in other cuisines, but I am no expert.
My mom doesn't cook bhunai - she's pushed for a low oil household since I was a kid and is extremely health conscious verging on "crunchy".
I've also done bhunai with electric stovetops and ceramic cookware like Dutch ovens and green pans and gotten close enough to an authentic taste - the marginal differences that exist are due to differences in ingredients in the US (eg. lower milkfat percentages, onions instead of shallots, different cultivars of vegetables, etc) and some inexperience of non-Westerners with Western cookware.
It's a very solvable problem. For example, the Indian restaurants my parents like and feel taste "authentic" use electric stovetops as well in the back, but discriminate on ingredients and masalas.
Yeah, my induction range will get a carbon steel wok really fucking hot really fucking quick.
Like, I can't really stir-fry on max because my range hood can't keep up and I set the smoke detector off. Outside of crappy rentals, I'm pretty sure electric ranges here are up to whatever, high-heat cooking wise.
Yep! My SO's Vietnamese and we've both been able to cook pretty decent Viet and Korean (Hallyu wave is a thing) food with electric stoves despite her being used to LNG and charcoal in VN.
The marginal difference in taste is literally just due to certain cultivars not being available here. Ofc, a half decent Vietnamese sourced nuoc mam solves everything but those are available at our Costco.
> The database is the instant answer at election closing time, and then you can take some days to count the papers as confirmation that nothing weird happened.
You are misunderstanding "who to trust".
The source of trust in a paper vote election is your party's representative + independent election observers. You believe them that they were sitting at the polling station all day, watching both the voting and counting, and nothing fishy happened. You don't have to trust the state officials in any way, and you don't have to trust any one else either. Just your party - which is kind of the point. The only people you maximally trust is your party.
In your proposal, you are saying that to trust the outcome, I must trust the state officials - the ones who built the machines. Those are exactly the people I distrust to do a fair election.
The poster is also trusting the database provider, database admin, the voting machine provider, the voting machine maintenance person, etc in an electronic voting machine since they implied this by saying database. Manual paper counts with multiple counters and multiple counts that resolve differences are hard to top when each set of counters is adversarial. In spite of that one thing I thought might be useful and point of failure if electronic voting were allowed is from Venezuela of all places. Each precinct printed an initial tally, the opposition collected most of them and claimed they were cheated. They might have had a fair election up until the voting machines were summed up at a central location -it appears the ruling party cheated when adding up the precincts. https://apnews.com/article/venezuela-election-maduro-machado...
> eVoting cannot be understood and audited by normal citizens, not even by nerdy ones.
I suggest you explain the verifiability of evoting systems to your grandma or your friend with an art degree. Then ask them to explain the same to their peer while you just listen. Then repeat the exercise with paper voting. You will see the difference.
We don't really have physical access to it - in the sense that on your desktop computer you can boot off a usb drive and reinstall the OS. There is no way you can boot your TV off external media. So you have to hack the existing OS while running it.
The way rooting working on a TV is that you run some javascript in the TV browser that targets some vulnerability in the browser/OS to run some code that then gives you a way in. Or if it has a USB port (to watch videos off a usb drive), you play a specifically crafted video that targets some vulnerability in the media players, to again install some program that then lets you do more serious changes to the OS.
You are correct. However, humans sometimes do write stuff that "looks like it solves the problem". A prime example of this is a student who doesn't know how to answer a question. So they make up a plausible sounding answer.
As a exam grader, you can easily tell when a student has the mindset of "solving a problem" but made a mistake, and when they had the mindset of "looks like it solves the problem" and just wrote some stuff.
The true reason you can't trust a Chinese company, and other countries can't trust US companies, is the Western patent regime that allows various companies to sit on patents for absurd amounts of times, preventing others from selling you completely clean hardware on which every piece of software can be replaced.
I have a T470. I have changed the screen (after I dropped water on it and shorted it), changed the batteries after 5 years, increased the RAM, and added an M2 drive. All of these were painless operations. Couldn't be happier with my purchase.
Definitely wouldn't be unheard of in the Fintech industry. But I don't know, because I don't use the service. My bank thankfully offers their own implementation of NFC payments within their own app, so I don't need to rely on any third-party services. Many banks in Europe actually do this. Here's a German article about Google-free mobile payments on GrapheneOS: https://www.kuketz-blog.de/nfc-datenschutzfreundlich-bezahle...
This has been a common practice in physics, especially the more theoretical branches, since the inception of arXiv. Senior researchers write a paper draft, and then send copies to some of their peers, get and incorporate feedback, and just submit to arxiv.
reply