Sigh-- people who read comments and don't take the time to understand them in the spirit they're written. Though since every comment of yours is down in the weeds or flagged, I'll still indulge you by explaining:
Sure; it's not spending months or more (which I've done a couple of times).
But most people tend to spend a couple days in one city on another continent and then move on to the next one; hitting 4-5 cities in a week and a half.
If I'm taking a short trip, it tends to be longer than most people's idea of a short trip. Even so, we tend to go to one or two cities and surrounding area.
Don’t argue with him. He is just and old man doing what all old man do: find excuses to not learn new stuff and convince himself that he didn’t have to do it
Yeah I find it really hard to see how they're being charitable. Just an old fart arguing for the continued relevance of curmudgeon-y technology instead of actually responding to the points being argued.
What people who still care about writing C are doing is starting to use tools to bring some of what Rust offers to C, because they acknowledge that avoiding entire categories of bugs is actually really good, despite which language you use. But... no mention of that here, it seems.
What make people happy are not experience per se, but the validation they get by posting them on instagram.
It’s the same thing: in the 50s people uses to buy a new car or a new refrigerator to impress the neighbor and today they post their travel to Machu Picchu or Dubai to impress their followers
What a strange recommendation. I do research in CS theory and machine learning and I try to find arXiv preprints when I can, they are usually more complete than conference versions of papers. If you stick to papers from authors you know or to those from well-known conferences, arXiv is often times the best source.
This is an extremely wrong viewpoint. "Many extremely important* papers have been published on arxiv alone - no other publisher. Just off the top of my head, without looking, ELMo from allenAI (the paper that started the contextualized representations revolution for BERT/attention) is only on arxiv.
That sounds highly misleading. It is the standard preprint site in many disciplines. So you should take it as seriously as any preprint and conversely if a published article is not on the arxiv, that would be suspicious.
Many of the best papers appear an Arxiv first. In some fields, it is customary to put your preprint on Arxiv before/during the submission to the peer reviewed venue.
Arxiv is vital for quickly developing research fields.
Eh, there are plenty of actual pre-prints you can find on arXiv. Typical flow is you find a paper of interest published elsewhere then search arXiv for the same title, authors, etc. and can even find related work. A lot of publication isn't doing much in terms of genuine peer review but formatting, catching minor errors like grammar, typo, missing references etc. arXiv is great as a legitimate source for valid information tucked behind a paywall. It's not the only option but it's one of them (checking the primary author's personal site, researchgate, or associated research institutions repositories are also there, as well as contacting the author directly).
Serious and trustworthy according to whom, exactly?
The term peer review was virtually non-existent prior to the 1960s. And despite that, nearly everything in modern society can ultimately be attributed to breakthroughs that happened prior to the advent of peer-review.
I think you misunderstand how accessible the Internet was, and the history of open-access journals dating back to the late 40s. arXiv started in 1991. None of it explains why the peer review started surfacing in published books.
It does correlate perfectly with when modern scholars point to when the institutions were captured.
