Tak Loufer

@LouferTak

Vrijeme pridruživanja: studeni 2017.
0 fotografija ili videozapisa Fotografije i videozapisi

Tweetovi

Blokirali ste korisnika/cu @LouferTak

Jeste li sigurni da želite vidjeti te tweetove? Time nećete deblokirati korisnika/cu @LouferTak

  1. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    20. pro 2019.

    ACM response i) does not clearly relate to the contents of the alarming letter ii) does not explain ACM’s own internal due process failure The correct thing to do would have been to write a diff letter w/ ACM’s concerns. The correct thing to do now is to withdraw the signature.

    Read more about the context and rationale behind ACM’s decision to sign letters in opposition to the OSTP zero embargo proposal:
    1 reply 16 proslijeđenih tweetova 62 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  2. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    20. pro 2019.

    This unfolding story deserves wider attention. ACM, the main academic society for computer science, has signed a despicable letter opposing open access. Computer scientists are shocked and figuring out how to protest. This is about the future of knowledge.

    590 proslijeđenih tweetova 1.040 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  3. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    20. pro 2019.

    The response is appreciated, but inadequate. This explains why signed a letter saying "we need more time". But (unlike many other societies) APS also signed a 2nd letter that said "0-day public access is bad for publishers and the USA". How did that happen?

    Odgovor korisnicima @talyarkoni @PsychScience @APA
    For anyone with questions about 's signing of the letter, please see this statement from APS.
    7 proslijeđenih tweetova 35 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  4. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    20. pro 2019.

    In case anyone in land is wondering, ACM's SIGs were not consulted on this letter and did not know anything about it before it was published. Some of us are asking for more information.

    As a lifetime professional member of ⁦⁩ and a firm believer in strong scholarly societies, I am deeply disappointed that my society is a signatory to this letter. Open access is hard but important.
    Prikaži ovu nit
    26 proslijeđenih tweetova 41 korisnik označava da mu se sviđa
    Poništi
  5. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    6. stu 2019.

    Another reminder that attending conferences is often a privilege of those who have the financial means, a "good" passport, no access requirements, and no young, old, or sick family members to care for. Without fixing these problems academia cannot be truly inclusive

    This never ends. This year, so far, 15 out of 44 people to attend workshop at (which is still in Canada) have been denied visas. That's 33%. We had all this press last year, they were supposed to help us this year.
    Prikaži ovu nit
    1 reply 30 proslijeđenih tweetova 96 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
    Poništi
  6. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    31. lis 2019.

    New post on & 's "Measurement Schmeasurement" paper. I apply their ideas to ego depletion. Inspired by recent episodes of Do We Have a Measurement Problem? | Psychology Today

    1 reply 15 proslijeđenih tweetova 26 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
    Poništi
  7. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    4. lip 2019.

    I also had some issues with this paper, so I did the same analysis, my way, last night.

    I said to comment on the new paper about the increased mortality for the CCR5 mutations, but the paper is too confusing with essential data unreported. Let me just share what I don't get--please add/explain. (thread)
    Prikaži ovu nit
    16 replies 180 proslijeđenih tweetova 395 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  8. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    27. ruj 2019.

    David Reich (inspired by the work of Sean Harrison) has found an error in the UK Biobank data that likely explains most or all of our results regarding CCR5 delta-32. We will work with the Nature Medicine editors to get the publication record corrected. 2/3

    95 proslijeđenih tweetova 875 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  9. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    27. ruj 2019.

    Just read 's blog post on CCR5-∆32. Interesting, excellent work that is essential reading.

    49 proslijeđenih tweetova 137 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
    Poništi

@LouferTak još nije objavio nijedan Tweet.

Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.

Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.

    Možda bi vam se svidjelo i ovo:

    ·