The ones that are not for the FOSS aspect are either masochists or using Apple, aren't they? I'm yet to meet anyone using Linux because they couldn't buy or pirate Windows.
> Funding open source would be cool though. Specially if we started hiring UX people
If I hadn't promised my wife that I would take a real break during the holidays, I'd be working on the landing page to gauge interest on this idea that I have on to create a (non-crypto) "DAO" for curating/funding/promoting Open Source development. Can I ping you once I have something more concrete to show?
> The ones that are not for the FOSS aspect are either masochists or using Apple, aren't they? I'm yet to meet anyone using Linux because they couldn't buy or pirate Windows.
I switched to Linux this year, after three decades as a happy Windows power user since 3.1, because I was finally sick of having to fight the OS to stop it from showing me ads, tracking my activity, and trying to push unwanted products and updates on me.
This may or may not count as "I switched for the FOSS". Of course its FOSS nature is ultimately the reason why Linux does not treat me as a data cow.
But if Linux were a fully closed-source, commercial OS, but still showed the same basic respect to me that older Windows version did, I would still be a happy user. Said respect need be as little as (1) don't put stuff on my machine without my permission, (2) let me do whatever the fuck I want on my machine.
The last time I installed windows on a computer was in 2007. Even then I was already spending more time on cygwin than on anything Windows-specific. Some years ago, I put together a Hackintosh to see if there was anything that I would be missing by sticking with Linux on the Desktop, and I realized that my day-to-day was better served on Linux than any alternative. I can confidently say that I will never ever again install any proprietary OS on my personal machines.
That said, there were more than a few occasions that made me aware that this choice was not free of downsides:
- When I gave up on having a reliable bluetooth connection
- When I got so sick of looking for ways to improve battery life and just started assuming that it will last a third of what is claimed to last with Windows.
- After I tried to connect my guitar to my computer via an usb interface and realized that I had to choose between running the sound effects application or running any other sound app that depended on Pulseaudio.
- When I browsed through Steam and realized that I still can not find a good car-racing game that runs on Linux.
So, yes, Linux is great and can do a lot. But if you are not having any kind of periodic frustration with it you are either resignated or playing within a very small sandbox.
> Force people into draconian measures that won't stop infection and violate their rights.
It won't stop infection. But it greatly reduces that rate and, above all, your risk of death and the strength of the disease in general in case you do catch it.
> Convince them that it's necessary to stop the pandemic without giving any arguments.
The argument should be very clear: vaccines are a known and easy way to make the virus a non-threat, or a small one at that.
To that end, you can see the numbers for yourself after vaccination started[1] and how greatly the number of deaths and cases has reduced.
> Have them defend your measures in public forums and feel very smart.
Given this is a place where IT Big Corp and govts. are constantly critized, I don't think anyone here is defending this as an WHO or any institution ass kisser
I think as a keyboard for French language, this is great.
However, the affirmation “extra characters are added so that one can effortlessly type in French (as well German, Spanish, Italian, etc.)” doesn't really hold well IMO. For example, there's “é” but no “áíúó” keys. This lack of acute diacritic for other vowels is a big dealbreaker for Spanish and Portuguese. Possibly, others too.
As someone used to the Brazilian (ABNT2) keyboard, I think dedicated keys for characters with diacritics is not the way.
Typing with diacritics for dead keys to the right is just as easy, if not more, as using alt gr, with the advantage of having more free keys.
Otherwise, this is great.
BTW, I like how this is closer to US keyboard than ABNT2, which switched the `~ key for quotes and makes typing stuff such as ``` for blocks of code a big pain, and annoying to open developer console in Source games. ABNT2 also annoyingly switched braces location to be vertically stacked.
The AUTHORS of the original paper got a dataset from a company. They didn't assume the fraud from the start and published the paper based on it.
Later, when they tried to analyze the issue more in-depth, they couldn't replicate the results. THE ORIGINAL AUTHORS PUBLISHED a paper about a failure to replicate. It was just then that someone looked at the original data and found that it was faked.
I did completely read what was available to me without having an account.
> The AUTHORS of the original paper got a dataset from a company. They didn't assume the fraud from the start and published the paper based on it.
My comment is not about who the culprit is or isn't. Indeed, I don't mention anything about it.
Rather, it's about how, as the title says, a WIDELY cited paper has fabricated data following rather (IMO) obvious red flag patterns and none of the people -who cited the paper- raised issues about that.
Thus, I questioned whether scientists read or not the papers they cite in the parent post.
The question is not a judgment, I'm just truly curious since I'm not part of the formal academia, just an undergraduate.
He created the excel file. If he wanted to clear his name he could publish the original data as it was sent from the company, but he hasn't done so. And the company obviously has no incentive to falsify the data.
If they did a good job hiding it then you wouldn't know about it. For every case like this where they made a obvious mistake, there are cases where they didn't, and nobody noticed. But you only tend to hear about the ones with obvious mistakes.
No. What are you kidding me. There's like typically over 50 papers referenced in a typical publication, no way I have the time to read all of them carefully
Yes, but few actually scrutinize the methodology of the studies. Statistics is really hard. It's easier to assume peer reviewers would have rejected the paper if it was bad.
Benford's law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law) is a pretty well-known test for fraudulent numbers. Of course, it's not infallible and (depending on the nature of the fake) it may be possible to tailor the numbers to 'pass' it, but it's a good heuristic. I'd be curious to know whether it would have detected this - and, if so, whether it was indeed used.
I depends on ones probity, but yes the phenomenon is widespread. There are numerous reasons to cite a paper and just read it superficially: padding the references list, pleasing a reviewer by adding a paper he recommended, citing friends, etc. In my own lab they frequently cite a certain theory which if you actually read about it has nothing to do with what they are doing.
The problem is often that reading it is insufficient. Unless you try to replicate, it may well look plausible, and often missing data or details creates barriers that makes you need to want to replicate really badly to put in the effort.
One of my favorite offline "classic" programs of all time is.. Microsoft WordPad.
It's by no means great, but it's so lightweight and gets off your way that it puts modern online Microsoft Word and Google Dpcs to shame with its mere 16MB memory usage for simple documents.
I wish more apps did that, even if they looked like a Windows app inside macOS or vice-versa
I wonder if releasing a new framework that doesnt try to look native but still tries to make flow for each OS optmized (e.g. allows to choose file picker between native and own) would be a resonable alternative to electron. Perhaps even with JS support so the gazilliins libraries out there arent totally lost.
Oh I love it. I use Libreoffice for Calc which is good-enough and still open source, but Write is a horrible word processing experience. For text alone it's just aesthetically dissatisfying but as soona s you need to include pictures it's an active barrier to productivity. More than once I've spent hours fuming over a Write document with a looming deadline, then thrown it away and started from scratch in Wordpad and finished with time to spare.
I somewhat suspect that WordPad is the only MS application that actually follows all the MS recommendations about usage of Win32 API and Windows HIG/UX.
Going a bit on the side track over here, due to MFC being mentioned.
Given the current state of C++/WinRT tooling, even the aging MFC is more productive for Windows applications.
It doesn't matter it isn't modern C++, is full of CWhaterver, it is still more than good enough for those use cases where .NET isn't an option for whatever reason and C++ must be used.
"The WordPad sample demonstrates how to implement an application that imitates the functionality of WordPad, including the user interface elements and some of the capabilities." per the readme
Absolutely, that's a calculated decision that companies make. It is fully expected that a certain market segment is not interested in being a customer at a given price point. Market segmentation is often done by OS version or device hardware profile.
We don't know how much of that 3% is there for the FOSS aspect.
I suspect most are because of the free aspect and being better than Windows for their use case, the open source is just a bonus.
> They are collectively willing to pay millions of dollars every year in perpetuity for a product
People love free stuff and will prefer it if its good enough, that's why Discord and Google Docs are so popular.
Funding open source would be cool though. Specially if we started hiring UX people