The name of the company is actually important information in a news story about a company.
And yes, if you change the headline to one that is confusing, then it becomes confusing.
The name of the company is actually important information in a news story about a company.
And yes, if you change the headline to one that is confusing, then it becomes confusing.
On that note, I would recommend perusing Underwood Dudley's Mathematical Cranks, not so much for the details of any math topic like trisecting an angle, but for the tone and psychology of the crank letters.
I love the smell of ban-worthy levels of condescension in the morning.
One area where I don't know of good recommendations is theoretical computer science. I am not sure what to suggest that would accessibly teach topics like algorithmic/Kolmogorov information theory without sliding downhill into "we can automate the scientific method" crankery. Or, perhaps, which teaches the relevant concepts clearly and solidly enough to make it obvious that LW use of them is crankery.
Another suggestion: Instead of indulging in LW-style Feynman worship, read James Gleick's biography of him. It does a pretty good job covering the actual science while giving a warts-and-all portrayal of the man.
I'm not dying on a hill; I'm saying that you're coming off as a pompous twit who will get themselves banned from the community the moment I or the other mods find your pompous twittery no longer amusing.
Edit to add: Whoops! That already happened whilst I was typing the above. Enjoy your free trip to the egress.
So sorry you wasted the five seconds it took to tell that the thing someone felt like sharing was not, in fact, the latest volume of the Oxbridge Handbook of Deep Analysis and Arguments for the Ages.
Locker Weenies
(Geordi LaForge holding up a hand in a "stop" gesture) transhumanism
(Geordi LaForge pointing as if to say "now there's an idea) trans humanism
What happened was that I had a handful of articles that I couldn't find an "official" home for because they were heavy on the kind of pedagogical writing that journals don't like. Then an acqusitions editor at Springer e-mailed me to ask if I'd do a monograph for them about my research area. (I think they have a big list of who won grants for what and just ask everybody.) I suggested turning my existing articles into textbook chapters, and they agreed. The book is revised versions of the items I already had put on the arXiv, plus some new material I wrote because it was lockdown season and I had nothing else to do. Springer was, I think, the most likely publisher for a niche monograph like that. One of the smaller university presses might also have gone for it.
I should add that I have a book published with Springer. So, yeah, my work is being directly devalued here. Fun fun fun.
Sounds like a perfectly reasonable duck.