Knowing how to write a good study is a matter of experience more than intelligence.

Yup, and the price of the Xbox Ally is ridiculous, as expected!

Openness is great, but there’s no financial reason to make specialized hardware to operate an open platform.

Historically, consoles have been sold near cost, and profits have been made on game sales after the fact. If you can just buy your games from Steam on console, the price of the console will go up. At some point, it no longer makes sense to buy the specialized hardware.

But we’ll get to see how that goes! It’s looking more and more like the next Xbox is going to run Windows.

Given the state of that trailer, its a shame it’s anywhere. We hate to see an IP being milked so hard.

Okular is the way to go for anything that’s typed, it has a lot more capabilities than Evince. For handwriting, I’ve used Inkscape, and Libreoffice Draw. They’re roughly similar in capabilities.

Yup, he was eating sodium bromide instead of sodium chloride. Any significant amount of bromide is not good for ya.

🎶Living in a JabRef woooorrrrld🎶

My understanding is that they offer them all, but publishers havent been able to reliably get 8 or 16gb cards. Whether thats Nintendo being shady or some legitimate supply issue, I don’t know.

Sure, but they can’t build Pandoc translation against an experimental format, so no LaTeX anytime soon.

Well, Typst is explicitly a no-go for anyone who has to submit a manuscript, until it they get a damn HTML representation, so Pandoc can get it to LaTeX. There’s practically nowhere I could use Typst except my own notes, and I’ve tried!

These aren’t relying on gravity, theyre relying on maintaining a vacuum, and concrete is extremely porous. They’re obviously sealing the inside of the chamber, but basically no coatings have a lifetime of 60 years for holding vacuum.

Yup. Even for technical writing, markdown with embedded LaTeX is great in most cases, thanks largely to Pandoc and its ability to convert the markdown into pure LaTeX. There are even manuscript-focused Markdown editors, like Zettlr.

There are currently 252 Catholic cardinals, but only 135 are eligible to cast ballots as those over the age of 80 can take part in debate but cannot vote.

You’re telling me the Catholic church has more term limits than the US Supreme Court?

Will do! I didn’t make this clear, I did think labplot was a great software for folks who don’t already have the skillset to make plots directly in python – which is the majority of people, and probably the target audience.

Keep up the good work!

Mi was trying out labplot yesterday, and as far as I can tell it can only really plot, not do any sort of transformation or data analysis. The plotting UI itself is pretty nice and the plots look good, but for most of my use cases its worth it to just spin up a Jupyter notebook and work with MatPlotLib directly.

If it could become a general-purpose UI for matplotlib, thatd be fantastic, but its pretty limited in actual usability for me at the moment.

Maybe the graph mode of logseq?

This gives strong “Lovecraft describing things he doesn’t understand as noneuclidian” vibes.

🎶 Saturday night and we in the spot, don’t believe me just watch 🎶

WELL ACKSHUALLY its a clay tablet, you just press into it with a little stick, then its fired…

Gotta love the low-quality-copper memes

While I agree that publishers charging high open access fees is a bad practice, the ACS journals aren’t the kind of bottom-of-the-barrel predatory journals you’re describing. ACS nano in particular is a well respected journal for nanochem, with a generally well-respected editorial board, and any suspicions of editorial misconduct of the type you’re describing would be a three-alarm fire in the community.

I will also note that this article is labelled “free to read” – when the authors have paid an (as you said, exhorbitant) publishing fee to have the paper be open access, the label used by ACS journals is “open access”. The “free to read” label would be an editorial decision, typically because the article is relevant outside the typical readerbase of the journal, and so it makes sense both from a practical perspective (and more cynically for the journal’s PR) to make it available to everyone, not just the community who has institutional access.

Also, the fact that the authors had a little fun with the title doesn’t mean its low-effort slop – this was actually an important critique at the time, because for years people had been adding different modifications to graphene and making a huge deal about how revolutionary their new magic material was.

The point this paper was trying to make is that finding modifications to graphene which make it better for electrocatalysis is not some revolutionary thing, because almost any modification works. It was actually a useful recalibration for expectations, as well as a good laugh.

Edit: typo