Please don't post about US Politics.
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
Whatever you do, make sure that you learn legally and avoid those horrible sites that steal the hard work of researchers and prevent publishers from properly incentivizing academic research by allowing just anyone to download research for free. You know, horrible sites like LibGen, SciHub, or Anna's archive.
Totally disgusting sites that you should definitely avoid.
Do not go to sci-hub.se! Can you believe someone had the audacity to allow access to government funded research papers for free? Everyone knows that only elite institutions deserve the benefits of publicly funded projects.
Support your local capitalist by paying them for the content they rightfully stole.
I forgot about that one, thank you!
based comment right here
Oh that sounds horrible, thank you for letting me know where to avoid as I had no idea.
YSK: That publishers do not fund or incentivize academic research.
Authors of scientific papers do not receive money for publishing them (sometimes they have to pay). The peer reviewers work for free. The high prices of scientific journals simply turn into obscenely huge profit margins for the publishers. Publishers harm research by siphoning off money from research budgets and also by preventing better ways of sharing research. Their obscene profits depend on doing things a certain way.
Funny story: Traditionally, researchers have transferred the copyrights to their papers to the journal. When the internet had become a thing, authors made their own papers available directly for download. Publishers then went after the authors for sharing their own research.
But surely the journals provide some sort of service for the researchers, right? Like paying for experts to review their scientific claims, or fact checking their citations, or even basic grammatical proofreading, right? If the journals are earning so much from research, then conducting academic research must be a lucrative field with so many publishers competing to be the first ones to publish a paper.
I see what you are asking: Why doesn't market competition drive down prices?
People have to publish in prestigious journals to make a career in science. So, that's the "service". Their position in the system lets them extract payment for something that other people deliver.
Even if someone opens up a competing journal, they are not likely to get quality submissions, because publishing in some unknown journal does not help the CV.
At the same time, the cost is mostly born by other people. Librarians pay for the subscriptions. I'm not sure why there is not more pushback from that angle. Eventually, institutions need access to these journals.
The cost to scientific research is spread over all society. No one person feels it. No one can even be sure how much better things would be under a reformed system.
Progress happens only when someone goes too far and causes outrage in the academic community. There has been some progress to move to a better model. But all that money can pay for a lot of PR.
ETA: On second thought, I'm probably simply not aware of the efforts of librarians, etc.
Letβs trace it back. Why do academics need to get published in order for their career to succeed? Why wouldnβt a paper published in a no-name journal carry any weight?
Does it boil down to whoever would be hiring them not having the time to read their research, so they rely on someone elseβs judgment?
I was being sarcastic. Many journals don't provide any of those services. Some journals even charge researchers for the "prestige" of publishing a paper. Peer review is mostly unpaid work, and some reviewers act as gatekeepers.
Add a " /s " at the end to help people know that.
No, please donβt. Do it using word choice and tone of your writing. Sarcasm exists for a reason and denoting it with a single symbol is a bad idea. Sarcasm functions through its subtlety, in writer and reader.
Sarcasm is using categorical imprecision to point out how obvious the truth is. Itβs words face-planting on purpose to get themselves out of the way of your eyes. To clearly label the sarcasm as such screws up this whole effect. Itβs bird shit on the lens β now theyβre looking at the surface of the lens not the thing you want to show them.
Itβs a structure that points elsewhere, and requires an intuitive leap. Adding the /s bridges what should be a leap and the utility of the technique as a means of communication is lost.
If you find yourself tempted to use the /s, what youβre discussing is probably too important for sarcasm anyway and you should just say what needs to be said.
I thought you might be, but I'm sure it's not common knowledge that it doesn't work that way.
For some reason, Lemmy has a tendency to go all in on trickle-down on copyright. Some threads feel like they are overrun by right-wing libertarians, with their faith in absolute property rights. Except that even the more doctrinaire among those libertarians tend to be conflicted on intellectual property.
Often it's a requirement of the workplace (typically acadaemia, e.g. R1 institutions), and it's paid for in large part by various grants from the government. Or done for free in "spare time" as is the case where I work. Β―\_(γ)_/Β―
As an information, you can always rely on the wikipedia page for those sites to find the up-to-date domain, so you can avoid it at all cost!!
As a quick reminder to everyone: Researchers have to pay to get their papers published in scientific journals. They receive no money back from those journals. The journals are all double-dipping by charging both the author and the reader to use them. It isnβt stealing from researchers when researchers donβt get paid for your usage regardless.
In fact, one of the most ethical ways to get access to research papers is to go to journals, find the author(s) of the paper you want to read, and email them directly to politely ask for a copy. Theyβll gladly send it to you for free, because they also hate the journal system that theyβve been forced into using.
Our teacher show us exactly how to access scihub, libgen and sites like this just for us to "avoid them".
I struggle to find recent publications on SciHub, y'know, to report them to the hardworking journals that tirelessly implemented paywalls.
Any ideas how I can find papers that are within the past 6 months?
Honestly - if it's a specific article, then just email the author. Unless they're a blowhard they'll usually be happy to shoot off a copy of the final PDF or at least a preprint. Doubly so if you're a grad student and say how excited you are about their research.
Whoever set up these sites should be ashamed of themselves. How dare they make critical knowledge that can improve humanity freely available?
Khan Academy is full of awesomeness.
Sometimes I get curious and search the origin of words at https://www.etymonline.com/
I swear 3/4 of the times I use a search engine is just "[random word] etymology", learning the origin and evolution of words and language is so fascinating.
It's straying close to Wikipedia, but Wiktionary is a useful resource as well.
Here are some:
lifesciencedb.jp/bp3d ( human body parts in 3D )
plosone.org ( peer reviewed scientific journal )
gutenberg.net.au ( ebooks )
librivox.org ( audiobooks )
More general:
instructables.com ( DIY projects )
en.wikivoyage.org (travel guide)
foodista.com ( food recipes )
My public library card works with Overdrive, so I use that to download ebooks and audiobooks
Seriously. Every time I see a post like this my first thought is to tell OP to go to the library. They will have a huge list of online resources that you can access for free with your card number.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/ β geography
https://www.orchidroots.com/ β official orchid names, and pictures
and the sister projects of Wikipedia, in particular:
https://en.wiktionary.org/ β dictionary
https://en.wikisource.org/ β old books (also in other languages)
https://en.wikivoyage.org/ β touristic information
https://species.wikimedia.org/ β species
You said "beyond Wikipedia", but I will also mention that Wikipedia in other languages is an excellent resource to learn a language.
TV Tropes
Warning: Do not go to TV Tropes unless you have a lot of time to burn, and enjoy having 97 nearly identical tabs open at the same time.
I give this link to anyone I know who struggles with tech literacy, and I've learned some things myself from some of the more advanced lessons. And it's all free.
If you wanna read research there's scihub. There's also clinicaltrials.gov and retractionwatch.com.
The Khan Academy is absolutely phenomenal for Math
For those hesitant to click through this, it's an interesting looking site trying to teach about cybersecurity stuff! Wouldn't have guessed that based on the name!
I don't think I would have graduated college without Khan Academy. For coding, MDN, Geeks4Geeks and W3Schools are also great.
I'm a software engineer, for stuff that are related to library/programming languages, I usually try to look at the official documentation first. Some of the best documentation pages IMO are: SQLite, PostgreSQL, and Rust book. MDN is good too, like you said. Looking at the source code helps too, especially the test files. I currently write lots of Go (programming language) code, and IMO their test files are so good, and you can learn how some functions behave or how to use it.
Other than that, I actually starting to learn to draw too, and for that I, so far, use drawabox. I think it's a good starter for learning to draw--as it gives you the most fundemental stuff when drawing. (technically not online, rather a book, but just before opening this thread I found this resource for learning drawing perspective: https://ia801206.us.archive.org/34/items/PerspectiveMadeEasy/Norling%20-%20Perspective%20Made%20Easy.pdf)
I also wanted to start playing guitar, but haven't got the money to buy one, but from what I hear Justin Guitar is a good free online resource. Haven't used it though
I like to use GPT4 as a tutor.
It needs to be told to be factual and quote its sources, but man is it awesome to have it explain complex things in ways that I can easily grasp them.
This is not to be confused with GPT3.5 which is like a toy, while GPT4 is a tool.
Microsoft Copilot now has free GPT4 (I have not tested that version all that well): copilot.microsoft.com
Its* sources.
I'd like to blame autocorrect but it was probably just me π Fixed.
You're quite graceful. You're welcome!
People talk a lot about stackoverflow for figuring out bugs and miscellaneous coding questions but the whole stackexchange project has a lot of other very excellent websites.
Poe.com is great for all manner of learning through a chatbot. It's got like a dozen different models that are great for answering natural human questions. You know like the one's you used to be able to answer through a web search without wading through pages of BS that don't actually answer the question. You might consider double checking it with a search engine or a different model to help cut out on any hallucinations it occasionally has.
It's also got some image generators to play around with, but they aren't really useful for learning.
sci-news.com
ChatGPT is amazing. The fact that 20% of what is says is wrong just increases the adventure. Like that scene in that David Brin book where one alien race had tricked another alien race into misunderstanding science, and hence lose a key battle.
