SatanicNotMessianic

I played Magic back in the day and the goal was to play the smallest deck possible.

Although I do have to say this guy would have easily beaten my millstone/control deck. I would have just resigned as soon as he sat down.

IIRC, Texas was one of the states that was looking to pass laws making it illegal to facilitate a person getting an out of state abortion based on passing laws about using public roads to leave the state. I am skeptical as to the constitutionality of those laws, but they are either in process or have been passed in several red states.

I think that the constitutional protection of interstate commerce might apply, but the laws are yet to be tested. You can fly to Las Vegas to gamble, even if gambling is illegal in Texas, for example. The more concerning potential application is whether they can consider an out of state abortion itself a crime, in the same way that if you fly to California and get stoned, you can (maybe) get picked up in Texas and get charged with testing positive for cannabis. I don’t know that they do that, but if it’s against the law to have a controlled substance in your system, I could see the possibility. I’m also concerned, if the interstate thing gets fucked over, that medical providers could potentially have a warrant put out for them in another state and either have a judgement entered against them or be forced to appear. Again, I’m not sure whether even this ACOTUS would go that far - there’s a very good reason the feds keep the states out of that kind of thing - but I’ve also stopped trying to predict what constitutes “too far” because they’ve so far violated every line in the sand I’ve managed to draw.

Here’s a link to the university press release on the study, which contains the actual study.

Bans work better on tobacco because unlike alcohol or drugs, they’re used habitually but generally not recreationally. That is, the role of cigarettes in society and individually is different from those of alcohol, cannabis, and the like.

I am going to hazard a guess that tobacco industry lobbying is responsible for this. They went into Eastern European nations and pitched the idea that tobacco control was bad for the country’s economy because without smokers they’d have to deal with more people who live to retirement age, and killing them earlier makes things cheaper.

Banning cigarettes removes them from convenience stores, making them much harder to buy. The work they’ve done so far has pulled the smoking population down to 8% from over 16% ten years ago, although it’s still 20% among Māori.

I would not be surprised if the ban cut that in half or more.

Found the parseltongue.

That bot is actually worse than useless because people read the god-awful summary and think they got the gist of the article. The bot has often left out the most important points.

It’s be better to just scrape the first Lee paragraphs and go with that.

I think the general idea would be to

1. Design a vehicle with as low a cost as possible. Maybe create a design challenge with a cash prize
2. Have the international community (mostly the US but it’d be reasonable for other countries to be pressured for this) subsidize the cost of the vehicles so they are competitive with ICE vehicles.
3. Infrastructure for charging and repairs. This is going to be incredibly expensive and we’d again have to look for subsidies to develop a power grid and charging stations, as well as creating local services to repair the vehicles.

The moral motivation for subsidies lies in the fact that the west in general is that the west has profited massively via wealth and resource extraction from Africa.

Of course you can put it anywhere you’d like. Services like arXiv specialize in hosting pre-prints of published papers as well as white papers that only have an institutional association.

The problem is that the job of an academic is to publish. That’s how you build credibility and seniority. For it to count as a “published paper” it needs to have undergone peer review so that the people who want to read/cite the paper at least have the confidence that it’s at least been reviewed by other experts in the field.

There are some “journals” that will publish anything as long as they get their fees. Most academics are wise to that by now, but it can still impress people in business for whom a pub is a pub.

What an odd chart. Do the authors do any kind of correlation analysis on something like interest rates or median housing prices to explain the seasonality?

Most of the people I know who moved to Austin are looking to come back to the west coast due to concerns about their civil rights being removed and their overall safety. Blue city in a red state used to be a viable strategy, but several Republican governors are centered that the big centralized state government can tell the cities what to do, while simultaneously saying that the federal government can’t tell them what to do.

My background is in theoretical biology, but I was mostly publishing in public health, physics, and computer science journals. We paid for every paper because I feel very strongly about research being made available to everyone, especially in the case of publicly funded work. I just make sure to budget for it.

I had a couple of papers in one of the PLOS journals, which afaik are fee-only pubs.

It’s been about ten years since I’ve had to worry about publishing, as o decided to sell out and join a commercial company, and they’re pretty averse to publishing. My information might be out of date.

I do think the academic publishing industry is atrocious, however, and I have always encouraged people to check on sites like arxiv, the personal web page of the lead author, and as a final attempt contacting the lead author directly. Most journals that I dealt with permit authors to upload preprints to sites like arxiv, and if you do it with your final revision the only difference would be the formatting. Of course, that doesn’t count as a publication for academic purposes, and it doesn’t get around paying fees for the journals that charge them, but it is an avenue for people to make their research more globally available for free. I’m sure you know of that, I’m just mentioning it for students looking for a copy of a paper.

I’m not even sure what he’s talking about. Open access journals are the ones who charge authors to publish.

If you publish in a journal that has closed access, there is generally no fee to publish. If you want your paper to be open access, you can tack on an additional open access fee so that your paper doesn’t end up behind a paywall. The last time I looked - and this was several years ago - the going rate for making your paper open access in a closed access journal was about $2-3k. We always budgeted for publication fees when we were putting together our funding proposals.

The fee structure is similar for open access journals, except that there’s not a choice about paying them. For researchers whose work isn’t grant funded, it generally means they’re paying out of pocket, unless their institution steps in.

I had a paper published in a small but (in its field) prestigious journal, and the editor explained to me that he only charges people who can afford it, and uses those funds to cover the costs of the journal. He explained that he had a paper from a researcher who couldn’t cover the publishing fee, and he let me know that I was helping out the other person, too.

What I don’t understand is how anyone how has gone through academia doesn’t know this.

If you haven’t yet, I recommend reading A Stitch in Time. It’s written by Andrew Robinson and the audiobook is read by him as well.