It’s utter bullshit from the very start. First, it isn’t true that the Ricci curvature can be written as they do in eqn (1). Second, in eqn (2) the Einstein tensor (middle term) cannot be replaced by the Ricci tensor (right-hand term), unless the Ricci scalar (“R”) is zero, which only happens when there’s no energy. They nonchalantly do that replacement without even a hint of explanation.
Elsevier and ScienceDirect should feel ashamed. They can go f**k themselves.
Agree 110%! It’s sad because it pushes back those people who were curious about alternatives and were willing to try. Hopefully things will improve with time…
I’ve tried different clients: Element web, desktop, and android, and FluffyChat desktop and android. The problems seems to come, as other have written, when the matrix.org server is involved: it’s people from their handle there which experience glitches joining rooms in other servers. It seems this “part” of the fediverse still needs a lot of development.
Looks very promising! thank you for sharing. Seems worth trying and supporting.
I didn’t know about !matrix, cheers!!
Which can be further summarized: academics (🙋🏻) are basically a bunch of idiotic sheep, despite being in academia.
See also https://pluralistic.net/2024/08/16/the-public-sphere/#not-the-elsevier
Fantastic, this is extremely helpful, thank you! 🥇 I wanted to test a couple of distros for my Thinkpad, and I’ll make sure to check and save this kind of information from live USBs.
Thank you, that’s useful info, I didn’t know about this. Could you be so kind to share some link, or say something more, about lspci and lsmod and how to proceed from them to identifying which drivers one should install? Cheers!
No matter when, it’s too late :)
Completely agree. Indeed it seems that they still try to bake its main theme in all the new soundtracks. I still listen to it every morning to get my energy charge!
Realized now that I double-posted this. You beat me… to the Punch!
Really embarrassing also for the journals that published the papers – and which are as guilty. They take ridiculously massive amounts of money to publish articles (publication cost for one article easily surpasses the cost of a high-end business laptop), and they don’t even check them properly?
Absolutely agree. Edited the post with a warning.
Yeah to me too. I’m not clicking on that “Download client” link for sure.
C148 is also visibile now!
I see that too now with c148,but not with c149 or c147 for example. Maybe just some temporary glitch? I’d give it a day and see. Or maybe email the maintainers. Bummers that you can’t skip directly to c149 without c148 first!
I still see them here:
As most who have already commented here, I’m somewhat unimpressed (and would expect more analytical subtlety from a scientist). Wittgenstein already fully dissected the notion of “free will”, showing its semantic variety of meanings and how at some depth it becomes vague and unclear. And Nietzsche discussed why “punishment” is necessary and makes sense even in a completely deterministic world… Sad that such insights are forgotten by many scientists. Often unclear if some scientists want to deepen our understanding of things, or just want sensationalism. Maybe a bit of both…
Fully agree.
It’s worth posting the blog post you linked.