Sure it can, as long as it retains behaviour according to whatever standard it needs to comply to. My point was rather that I would be very surprised if the actual implementation (at memory level) was a linked list.

You’re probably right, at the same time, a spring that isn’t overloaded can usually take an absurd amount of cycles: Just think about how long the suspension on a car typically lasts compared to a lot of other parts.

If I’m understanding you correctly, they’re basically doing the same thing as Python under the hood and using a heap-allocated array (vector) of pointers? If so, that should still be orders of magnitude faster than a linked list.

If their implementation is actually a linked list, colour me shocked. My impression was that JavaScript is “decently fast”. I’ve never even considered writing high-performance code in it, but I’ve heard that the compiler can optimise extremely aggressively, and it’s used so widely that I couldn’t imagine that it had glaring performance issues like what I would expect to see if every array was actually a linked list under the hood.

And FORTRAN (I do nothing but SCREAM in FORTRAN anyway)

That’s right the actual moment of breaking usually releases tension, but the overall process of breaking includes building it up!

Idk about you, but I usually build tension when I break.

I heard about a version that used springs as well. Basically a pull-back car: When you break, it puts tension on the springs, then it releases that tension when accelerating. Apparently it was very good for city-driving, since you get an absurd number of cycles with very small “charges”, which makes it very good when you do a lot of start/stop driving in slow traffic. I’m not sure why I haven’t heard any more about it in more recent years.

Thanks, I hadn’t caught that!

Beall also claimed that MDPI used email spam to solicit manuscripts

I can confirm - this is what I’ve been experiencing after publishing with them once.

In August 2018, 10 senior editors (including the editor-in-chief) of the journal Nutrients resigned, alleging that MDPI forced the replacement of the editor-in-chief because of his high editorial standards and for resisting pressure to “accept manuscripts of mediocre quality and importance.”

Yep, this is really bad, and something I definitely should have known.

(Edit: In my defence, I was relatively inexperienced at the time, and was recommended to publish in a special issue there by a (very) senior researcher that I know well and have every reason to trust. They definitely should have known better, and I’ve since learned to not trust the judgement of your seniors, even when it seems reasonable at first sight to do so.)

MDPI even asked Jeffrey Beall, the author of Beall’s list of predatory publishers, to edit a Special Issue in a field that is not his own.

Yea, I’m never publishing with these guys again. I probably wouldn’t have anyway, because the email-spam has been so annoying, but now I definitely won’t.

For anyone interested in predatory publishing practices, the link is a pretty good and in-depth read.

There’s nothing to discuss.

I have plenty of grievances with publishing practices that it could be nice to both discuss with peers, and discuss online on a forum where people outside the science community can both learn about what’s going on in the community and come with input from outside.

You are clearly biased due to the motivation to defend the publishing body for your research.

I’ve literally published one article in an MDPI-journal, and have exactly zero motivation to defend that journal. My work stands on its own feet, regardless where it’s been published. I haven’t even defended the publisher or the journal in my comments, so I don’t see how you can conclude that I’m motivated to do so.

Expert scientific bodies all over the globe, including China , Europe , had or have strong criticisms of the MDPI and for very good reasons.

This is what I asked you to elaborate on. Not because I think you’re wrong or have any need to prove you wrong, but because I wanted to open for a discussion around publishing practice and bad journals/publishers.

You seem to have concluded a priori that I disagree with you, and then you’re attacking me based on that. I really can’t fathom why you would do that. This could have been a pleasant conversation that both myself and others reading these comments could learn and benefit from, but you decided to make it about attacking my integrity and qualifications as a researcher.

Being a researcher, I know that the most efficient way to get more knowledge about a claim can be to ask the person making the claim. Being a lemmy-user, I recognise the value of asking the question openly so that others can read the response. I really don’t understand why you would try to make that point (in a derogatory way nonetheless …) of course I could check this myself, that’s easy. I decided to ask because

a) You might have specific reasons for claiming what you did that could be different from, or more specific than, the myriad of reasons that could show up in a search.

b) I wanted to contribute here by opening for a pleasant conversation about publishing practice.

With that said: I’m kind of surprised these points would be applied to the publisher as a whole. The fact that the publisher is multi-disciplinary doesn’t in my eyes imply that the individual journals are “inexpert” (they can still be confined to a niche). The review process is also typically run by the individual journal, so I’m a bit surprised that a blanket description of “crappy review” is applied to a publisher as a whole.

Honest question: What’s wrong with MDPI? I’ve published in one of them, and noted that they (MDPI) have been spamming for more ever since, but other than that I haven’t heard of any issue with them.

No? Even if the new battery is 3x more expensive to build, and has 50 % of the capacity of a Li-ion battery, it can still have an advantage in large scale storage if it lasts for 10x as many cycles without degrading. At the end of the day, it’s a combination of parameters that determine which is the best for a given application, and high resistance to degradation can outweigh other parameters in many scenarios.

https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Palantíri

How Are so many people so ignorant and confident at the same time? You’re all acting like you know what you’re talking about…

I have no idea what you’re talking about… humans are around 1-2m tall, weigh about 40-80kg, have a body temperature of about 37 C, and need to drink a couple litres of water per day. How are these units not the proper order of magnitude for measuring things “on a human scale”?

Lo be unto the metric users, that the units of length and volume conveniently sync up!

How many cubic inches is a gallon btw?

I’m upvoting just to counterbalance the people downvoting because they dislike someone else’s subjective opinion.

The damaging kind necessarily carries enough energy to cause damage, what’s preventing it from being harvested?

Isn’t a major challenge of trying to surpass Voyager 1 that it had extremely good conditions for slingshotting off a lot of planets?

Or… is that the point when the parent (having now learned what it takes to make someone else independent) finally becomes an adult?

In Norwegian we operate with “førstkommende” which translates more or less directly to “first-coming”. It’s extremely practical when planning dates, because you can always just say “Not the first-coming Thursday, but next Thursday”, or “On the first-coming Thursday”, and it’s completely unambiguous that you mean the first Thursday we encounter from the moment of speaking.