An example of a similar phenomenon here https://a3nm.net/work/research/questions/#words-without-shuf... where someone interested in the sequence "abcacbacabc" is plausibly looking at the longest and lexicographically smallest ternary word without a shuffle square substring. Just searching for "abcacbacabc" on Google yields papers who look at this -- and two people independently coming up with the concept could find each other in this way if they write examples the same way even if they don't use the same words to define the concept.

(A related resource in maths is the OEIS https://oeis.org/ to see whether the integer sequence you came up with has already been studied or has another non-obvious reformulation.)

Compare this to diamond OA journals (e.g., in my field, https://theoretics.episciences.org/ or https://lmcs.episciences.org/) where reading and publishing is free for everyone. Of course, the people publishing in these journals are mostly academics from wealthy universities, but I think it's important that other authors can submit and publish there too.

And unfortunately carbon offsetting is rather unreliable (companies buying offsets don't have any incentive for the offsets to be actual savings). I'd be wary of climate change solutions that consist of continuing business as usual and assuming that decarbonation will happen in some other sectors. I also suspect the 20% price increase estimate works for a specific price of carbon, but that price could increase if carbon offsets started becoming widely used (and the demand increases).

Anyway, I don't know what's the right way for the US to reduce travel emissions, whether that's electric coaches, cheaper rail, taxation to increase prices and reduce demand... But I don't think the solution can be "just keep planes and add carbon capture".

It is not known whether this problem is NP-hard, or whether it can be solved in polynomial time; apparently the question is open since the early 90s.

(The problem is also open for paths of length p mod q for any fixed p and q (fixed means they are constants, and are not given as input), whenever q>2. The problem is known to be in PTIME for 0 mod 2 and 1 mod 2, and to be NP-hard when the graph is directed. Pointers to related work here: https://gitlab.com/a3nm/modpath)

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37887330

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

Sure, but pronouns? If someone refers to you using the wrong pronoun (e.g., assuming you're male, which this Vaxry person apparently admits to doing), don't you want to point it out somehow?

E.g., "address people using the name and gender that they use to refer to themselves". You would expect this to be obvious, and yet... Or maybe making this explicit is promoting a "woke ideology"?

Well, Drew's article gives a concrete example of a victim. But beyond this specific article, it is not difficult to find examples of people who were harassed when trying to be involved in an open source community. This is pretty much the reason why so many open source projects are adopting codes of conduct.

First, the article talks about "double-blind reviewing" as being "logistically hard" because reviewers can "find the paper in a Google search", and talks about a "price tag". By contrast, many conferences around me implement so-called "lightweight double-blind" reviewing, which takes zero effort and just means that the authors and affiliations are not mentioned on the copy of the paper that reviewers read. I think this form of double-blind is a no-brainer, eliminating some bias with essentially no downside; and that discussions about the cost and complexity of double-blind reviewing are a distraction from this immediate improvement.

Here is a typical paragraph from a call for papers (here, STACS 2023) describing the policy:

  As in the previous two years, STACS 2023 will employ a lightweight double-blind reviewing process: submissions should not reveal the identity of the authors in any way. The purpose of the double-blind reviewing is to help PC members and external reviewers come to an initial judgment about the paper without bias, not to make it impossible for them to discover the authors if they were to try. Nothing should be done in the name of anonymity that weakens the submission or makes the job of reviewing the paper more difficult. In particular, important references should not be omitted or anonymized. In addition, authors should feel free to disseminate their ideas or draft versions of their paper as they normally would. For example, authors may post drafts of their papers on the web, submit them to arXiv, and give talks on their research ideas.