> So a citation to an article in Nature isn't any better than one on arXiV.
The real problem is that nobody can grade and compare article in different topics, so there are proxies like number of articles in "serious" journals (whatever that means[1]) and number of citations in "serious" journals (whatever that means[1]).
Do we count also citations in X/Tweeter, FaceBook, WordPress [2], StackOverflow, ... ?
If links in HN also count as citations, there are 3 additional citations for my last paper:
It would be nice if the 10 example test fits in one page.
I selected "First Grader>Subtraction>Within 10" and I got 10-6 as an exercise. I'm not sure if it's the usual slot. I expect "no carry" subtraction at the first step, but it may vary between schools/country/decade/whatever.
A few years ago, in my university we have a big problem at the beginning of the semester to contact ~10K students, in particular when they register to our Moodle platform and the server sends them a message.
Gmail was usually ok.
Yahoo had some max messages per day.
But Hotmail/Live/Outlook/whatever just made the messages disappear, no spam folder, no bounce, just disappear. We had some success telling the students to send us a message from their Hotmail/Live/Outlook/whatever address half an hour before registration. This adds our address to some special secret list for that account, and our later messages (usually) reach them. (It may fail. It may fail. IWOMM. YMMV.)
> A neutrino interaction with the electrons or nuclei of water can produce a charged particle that moves faster than the speed of light in water, which is slower than the speed of light in vacuum. This creates a cone of light known as Cherenkov radiation, which is the optical equivalent to a sonic boom. The Cherenkov light is projected as a ring on the wall of the detector and recorded by the PMTs.
I agree. I read the 5000 years time a few times and I don't like it.
When you have a transparent medium like water or glass, the photon that enters and the photon that exit share a lot of properties, in particular energy/color/frequency. Perhaps they have a shift in the phase or a different polarization (like in water with sugar or if you want to be fancy a quarter wave plate). You can still split a beam before in enter and make interference experiments after half of it passed though water or glass, and other weird experiments, so I think it's fair to call them "the same photon".
But in the Sun, the original photons in the center of the Sun have a few very specific values of energy/color/frequency, that are totally lost. (But the neutrinos have so few interactions that they don't lose this information, and it's possible to do neutrino spectroscopy!)
Also, the photons emitted by the "surface" of the Sun have a wide spectrum of energy/color/frequency that is very close to black body radiation at something like 5000K-6000K.
So in my opinion it's better to think that the original photon in the center is absorbed shortly after it's emitted, and transformed into heat. The heat takes 5000 years to get to the surface. And then the hot surface emits a few new photons unrelated to the original one.
I'm not sure what is the main transmission method inside the Sun: conduction, convection or radiation.
The real problem is that nobody can grade and compare article in different topics, so there are proxies like number of articles in "serious" journals (whatever that means[1]) and number of citations in "serious" journals (whatever that means[1]).
Do we count also citations in X/Tweeter, FaceBook, WordPress [2], StackOverflow, ... ?
If links in HN also count as citations, there are 3 additional citations for my last paper:
http://www.example.com/gus_massa/very_good_paper_2026.pdf
http://www.example.com/gus_massa/very_good_paper_2026.pdf
http://www.example.com/gus_massa/very_good_paper_2026.pdf
[1] Which journals are serious and which are paper mills? In the extremes the difference is clear, but there in the middle there is a gray zone.
[2] A citation in Tao's blog in WordPress should be worth at least half official citation, or perhaps a whole point.
reply