And it excludes a lot less than its inspiration Dogme 95, which has as one rule "Genre movies are not acceptable."

Indeed I cannot. If you do that, you are not, in fact, an honest researcher. You're a lazy hack.

It absolutely is.

> - because that could have happened on a final follow-up pass after you had performed due diligence.

A "final follow-up pass" that lets the LLM make whatever changes it deems appropriate completely negates all the due diligence you did before, unless you very carefully review the diffs. And a new or substantially changed citation should stand out in that diff so much that there's no possible excuse to missing it.

> It’s happened to me.

Then you were guilty of reckless disregard.

> I know how challenging it can be to keep bad patterns out of LLM generated output

If your research paper contains any LLM generated output you did not manually vet, you are a hack and should not get published.

Though... now that I think about it, maybe it does fit - it's all about the question "practical usability for what?"

I suppose that if what you actually want to do is model and reason about theoretical computability, then most things that make languages convenient to implement things in actually are accidental complexity!

Can you also guarantee with absolute certainty that you'll never forget them anywhere another person who's unaware of the contents or the danger could find them?

But you were specifically claiming that Europe was "more peaceful than places like the areas of the ottoman empire", which is frankly absurd. I mean, we're talking about a region that had a Thirty Years' War, an Eighty Years' War, and a Hundred Years' War!

Unless... if you're talking about WW1 "ending the era" - were you talking only about a shorter timeframe prior to WW1? If we look only at the 40 or so years before 1914, then indeed Europe had a fairly peaceful period (Belle Époque, Gründerzeit) while the Ottoman Empire was basically starting its death throes.

I think it is very deliberately written to be impossible to "understand". If you think you have found its clear and unambiguous meaning, you're wrong.

Um... WHAT?

I'll just leave this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe

Technically true, practically a lie. Because that server delivers the Javascript which decodes and presents the content, and that Javascript absolutely has the ability to inspect, modify/censor, and leak the content (along with fingerprints of the browser).

> no host to pressure, no platform that can decide your content should not exist.

Except for https://nowhr.xyz, which becomes a single point of failure for all of these sites...

Yes, it's not communicated very clearly.

I think that's exactly what the article is arguing for. The part about manned airships is just a whimsical aside to the much safer, entirely feasible, and nearly as scientifically valuable prospect of using unmanned balloons.