When discussing remote vs non-remote with a colleague some time ago over lunch, he mentioned that "remote is an extreme version of yourself", so those inclined to slack off will slack off way more to the point of being unproductive, and those inclined to work longer hours will eventually just spend all their time working... Maybe over-simplified but I think he was onto something.
arXiv replaces any URL in the text of the abstract with a link with text "this http url"; it seems the authors did not know this and just embedded a bare URL in their abstract.
One thing that Git and the other DVCS's massively improved over Subversion is that commits are local, and you only need to talk to a remote endpoint when you push/pull. In Subversion, every commit would require uploading changes to the repository server, which encouraged larger commits (to amortize the overhead).
It really depends on what your current and wanted roles are... When it happened to me, I would have had to interview again because there were no other roles in my career ladder left in town.
I agree, but how is this different from polls, fidelity programs at department stores, statistics on various topics, etc - all of which have existed for decades?
Maybe we should establish a sort of expert-led central archive of rock-solid, battle-tested C libs/functions/snippets that one can trust ?
GNUlib [1], albeit marketed as a "portability library", in fact shares a lot of that goal and includes data structure implementation, OS interfaces, etc. A couple of excerpts from the docs:
* "Gnulib is intended to be the canonical source for most of the important “portability” and/or common files for GNU projects. These are files intended to be shared at the source level" [3]
* "We develop and maintain a testsuite for Gnulib. The goal is to have a 100% firm interface so that maintainers can feel free to update to the code in git at any time and know that their application will not break." [3]
I find that the experience of writing (La)TeX depends a lot on what you are using to write it. For me, Emacs' AuC-TeX [1] is nearly perfect: it has shortcuts and autocompletion for almost all the environment names and commands, inline preview, BibTeX searches (via RefTeX), and a number of other minor features that make it easy to write LaTeX. Honestly, I wish that other text-writing modes (like markdown-mode) would implement the interface and functionality of AuC-TeX and not the other way round.
As for the syntax: I love Markdown for writing very simple text content, but as soon as you need to do something just a little more complicated it becomes awkward (e.g., table entries that span multiple paragraphs) and some task are simply impossible (e.g. referencing a list item by label value, the way you do it with TeX's `\label` and `\ref`). The programmability of TeX-based systems is actually a great thing that lets you write shorter documents and push many aesthetics decisions to a `.sty` file (e.g., you can at any time change your mind on how `\vector{u}` should be rendered).
Or, instead, you get a much larger audience reviewing your article, instead of the 2 to 4 reviewers involved in the paper publishing process :-)
You can get comments from critical and interested readers, you upload a new version of the paper to arXiv, and repeat the process until the article is ready for submission/publishing.
In other words: I think that an article on arXiv (on average and as a whole, individual articles may be exceptional) is subject to much wider and more extensive scrutiny and verification than the average article during the paper publication process.
> But moderators frequently intervene, delaying posting by days or weeks, reclassifying papers or even outright rejecting submissions.
Definitely not my experience. I haven't posted to arXiv in a while now, but I wasn't even aware a moderation queue exists -- none of my papers were delayed, reclassified, or other...
EDIT: I see the article provides a few examples, but then they also provide numbers: "At arXiv, roughly 6 percent of submissions receive a hold, and about 2 percent are rejected." -- 8% of heavy-handed moderation intervention wouldn't qualify as "frequently" IMHO.
When discussing remote vs non-remote with a colleague some time ago over lunch, he mentioned that "remote is an extreme version of yourself", so those inclined to slack off will slack off way more to the point of being unproductive, and those inclined to work longer hours will eventually just spend all their time working... Maybe over-simplified but I think he was onto something.