^^ in the same groove as my first comment on this post.

Agreed, as a counter/Devil's advocate point though, wouldn't what is being written by the reviewer be obvious whether or not it's just pettiness and other non-constructive criticism, versus something that was well considered?

To hopefully add to the discussion here. Not a scientist (professional), nor do i have a degree in anything (debt sucks), but AFA i see it, a reviewer shouldn't be evaluating a paper based on a popularity contest, but based scientific rigor and well reasoned approach that paper has. If the data is good, if their analysis is good, etc etc etc. On things that aren't dependent on being in a clique and/or popular.

That just smells of bad science, and make it not surprising the mainstream is "lagging behind". People actively stifling real scientific advancement, instead of letting it flourish.

I feel bad for people that do have that purity of purpose that either have to put up with that kind of BS, and people that have been victims of said behaviour.

I appreciate very much people who have it in their blood, their passion, like i have music and singing in my blood. You know you'll get someone who'll do the best job possible, and care about what sort of science is being done. Thank you for being you

amazing <3

It's dumb you got downvoted for telling a joke, geez

Telling jokes on HN is risky. HN readers don't want the site full of jokes, so they savagely downvote them unless almost everyone finds them hilarious.

> geez

This is a euphemism. Please don't use it.

Why not, out of curiosity?

It's a euphemism for J-sus.

“In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins.” (1 Jn. 4:10)

Dissent, because for those of us who have never heard of such a connection (myself included) it is /not/ a euphamism but rather a safe epithet that the use of which never got anyone accused of "foul langauge" nor got anyone threatened with "mouth washed out with soap".

. o O ( The minor peril of disabling my autocorrect is that while my words may be inteligible, and both non sequiturs and wholly altered meanings may be avoided…spellings may occasionally falter. )

Oral history. And before someone says anything, Haudenosaunee Thanksgiving address, the 4 day one. Done every year. Still.

Efficiency on scale instead of detail.

A hash method would quickly run out of disk space before it could be used to verify every single file. Hence hashed b-tree for xfs (or is it jfs? I forget), and stuff like that.

A verify once used many times method is more efficient on a large scale.

I'm no maths expert, heck i don't even know calculus.

Assuming you meant "just to avoid any confusion" :)

While this isn't the root issue it is definitely a major concern that should be addressed. It's deceptive by nature.

Pretty much, and worse