Today’s piece is a guest post by Alex Obadia. Alex is a new program director at the UK’s Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA). As Alex puts it, his focus is “currently on designing new enabling trust primitives for a world where many more substrates (e.g. DNA, materials, thoughts) are programmable.” I met Alex last month at the ARIA Summit.

Thirty years after my first contact with computational (ir)reproducibility, I am happy to note that many things have improved. Reproducibility, computational and otherwise, is increasingly recognized as an important aspect of scientific quality control, and mostly considered worth striving for.

The highly prestigious journal Nature this week announced that it is going to be publishing all peer reviews alongside the articles it publishes. This means that the reviews attached to each publication will be available for all to read, although reviewer identities will remain anonymous unless they opt to sign their review.

Fragt man, welche Hürden der Transformation zu Open Access, Open Research und Open Science besonders im Weg stehen, dann lautet eine der häufigsten Antworten: Es sind die rechtlichen Unsicherheiten. Oft möchte man gern, weiß aber nicht, ob man darf. Oder man fragt sich, zum Beispiel, wie der § 38 UrhG Abs. 4 eigentlich auszulegen ist? Oder welche Implikationen sich aus den Creative-Commons-Lizenzen ergeben?

Four months after my open letter calling on the Royal Society to take action over Elon Musk FRS’s breaches of their code of conduct had attracted thousands of signatures from the scientific community, but only a very muted response from that most learned organisation, I was beginning to think I should let the matter go. After all, Musk is no longer part of the Trump administration, his relationship with the president

Presentations After a welcome by Heinz Pampel, Catharina Ochsner first introduced the topic of scholarly blogs. She introduced the basic concept of scholarly blogging, presented challenges of archiving blogs, and emphasized the importance of the long-term accessibility of scholarly blogs.

Continúo la discusión de la última entrada. Las omisiones no debidas a homoioteleuton y homeoarcton, así como las lagunas por pérdida de material, suelen tener valor conjuntivo pleno entre dos manuscritos.

In some ways, there has been little news in the iNaturalist ‘GenAI’ story: Beyond some vague posturing towards “going to work on improving ways to get feedback from the community” , saying (but not demonstrating) that they are ‘listening’, and somehow doing some ‘webinar’ at some point in the future, there’s been very little commitment from any iNaturalist staff or leaders.

This post is part of a living literature review on societal collapse. You can find an indexed archive here. For this post I aim to essentially create a little repository of catastrophic risk lists, so other people can find those more easily and get an overview of how groups of experts with different backgrounds categorize and evaluate risks.

Sie ist Dreh- und Angelpunkt für die Frage, ob eine geistige Leistung als Werk gilt und damit urheberrechtlichen Schutz genießt: die Schöpfungshöhe. Es ranken sich Mythen um sie, ihre Bestimmung ist nicht trivial und hängt vom Einzelfall ab. Doch es gibt klare Kriterien und Beispiele zur Orientierung. Die „Schöpfungshöhe“ ist ein unbestimmter Rechtsbegriff , also nicht im Gesetz selbst definiert.

In media, policy and scholarship, forced migrants are typically portrayed as either inherently vulnerable and in need of external protection, and/or as naturally violent and threatening and therefore not deserving of care. We know very little, however, about forced migrants as actors and providers of care themselves.