We receive about 1 million fresh scans each week

Is that what Pokemon Go is about? Is there a comprehensive description of how Niantic does business and the games, data collection and processing relate?

They’re all kind of old, though. Most of the active ones seem like 5-10 years old. Are there any recent new projects?

And are the projects from like 2009 still feasable? I mean both argorithms and compute hardware in the datacenters of those universities may have made leaps forwards since then?

What should be wrong with it? Seems it’s MIT licensed and has 1 tracking library according to Exodus… That’s way better than their proprietary competition, and worse than a Free Software solution.

Though, it’s just an app. The logic and complicated computations all happen on their servers.

Danke für den Tipp. Mit Sojaflocken habe ich noch nie gearbeitet. Nach kurzem googeln, sieht es so aus wie ein ganz normales Frikadellen-Rezept, nur das man Sojaflocken hineintut?! Ich denke, das könnte ich mal ausprobieren. Meine letzten Versuche Frikadellen zu fälschen, sind alle nicht so gut geworden.

Uh, nicht dass ich wüsste. Also Tofu hat schon einen charakteristischen Geruch und Geschmack. Ich weiß, dass einige Leute den mögen und andere nicht. Aber außer ignorieren, übertünchen oder gar nicht erst Tofu verwenden, fällt mir da jetzt nichts ein … Es gibt aber zig verschiedene Tofu-Varianten. Von Quark-Konsistenz bis ordentlich fermentiert und ziemlich fest, gibt es da ganz viele Abstufungen in einem gut sortierten Asia-Laden. Und man kann die auch relativ roh essen, bis länger in Marinade/Sojasauce/Räucherpaprika einlegen. Aber ich glaube so ganz weg, geht das nie.

Nice, ganz lieben Dank für den Tipp! Probiere ich die Tage mal aus.

I’m currently not doing much freelance work or working in any customer-related department… So I don’t use any CRM. But I heard some freelance programmers like InvoiceNinja. I just got a bit interested in organizing some stuff. So I started evaluating some knowledge-management and (Free Software) enterprise solutions. But I’m less interested in the CRM part. And I didn’t find any awesome match, yet.

Ja, das ist natürlich ein guter Einwand. Ich beuge mich sowieso nie der Autorität von Rezepten. Ich finde, Rezepte sind ziemlich subjektiv und es gibt kein objektives “richtig”. Ich mag ganz gerne Tofu-Würfel. Gerne gut mariniert und optional scharf angebraten. Die kann man aber locker weglassen. Bezüglich des Nährwertes sind sie hier wahrscheinlich überflüssig, sind ja letztendlich auch nur weitere Bohnen, nur in einer etwas seltsamen Form.

I think a major part of getting “beat” is they fought the USSR in the east and simultaneously the USA and UK in the west. I mean the war against Stalin wasn’t going super smoothy. But it went on since 1941 already. And it really went south for the nazis when the USA joined WW2.

The article sounds like there is just Salesforce and now Twenty (and SugarCRM). But there are a lot of other open source alternatives that have been around for quite a while: Odoo, ERPNext, SuiteCRM, CiviCRM, … just to name a few.

Ich hab auch noch ein paar erprobte Hauptgerichte, sind aber eher Sachen ohne Fleisch, die ich abgetippt habe:

• Blumenkohlsteaks
• Wilde-Nudel-Auflauf
• Chili con Tofu
• Halloumi-Burger
• Linseneintopf mit Tofu
• Spaghetti Schwarzbrotonese
• Pizza

That’d be the body text of the post:

Also: how do you identify a work as peer reviewed?

Then HubertManne directly replied to that: “If its peer reviewed then …”

Then I replied saying, everything after the “then” (the main text of the comment) has nothing to do with peer review but is a different concept. So no one gets the impression you can make the judgement the other way around: If it’s doing that, then it’s peer-reviewed. Because that’d be wrong.

And then we started having this lengthy discussion. Do you concur? Or are we having some technical difficulties, and we’re somehow seeing a different post/comment tree?

That is because the first 4 or so words are about the topic. And then is a long paragraph describing something else. And I didn’t do any accusations. I pointed out that those several sentences are about reproducibility and not to be mistaken for the topic at hand. And they are. So I don’t get it, I don’t think I made any whoopsie. I just pointed out that we’re now talking about a different topic and reproducibility isn’t review. Which is true… Seems to me everyone is right? I don’t see any factual disagreement here. And if my “accusation” is saying they talked about reproducibility… That’s kind of what happened?!

Sure. I don’t want to argue. I took it as that, since it was a direct reply to a specific question. And i think my short outline of what the word means is mostly correct.

Yeah, I pointed out my reasoning in the other comment to my reply. Sure, if it’s proper peer reviewed since, it’ll follow the process. But that doesn’t answer OP’s question. I agree, however. If it’s proper science, it’s proper science. I just wanted to stick with the question at hand. And there is no causal relationship between peer-review and reproducibility, other than that it’s both part of science. So I got mislead by the … if … then … phrasing.

Yeah, but the question was: how does someone find out something is peer reviewed? And phrasing it like this is silly… It’s peer reviewed if it’s peer reviewed… That’s a tautology. Sure it’s true. But it doesn’t mean anything. And if you take the implication the other way round (as I did), it’s wrong. That’s what I pointed out. Minus the tautology part.

Fair enough. Maybe we had a different understanding of OP’s question. I took it to mean, how can I find out a given article/paper has been reviewed… And that’s not done by looking if it looks scientific, but if the review process has happened.

Though, that’s not peer review. What you’re describing is reproducibility. And that’s the very minimum to qualify as science. If it doesn’t describe the experiment well enough so an expert can follow it… It’s not even proper science.

Peer review means, several expert in that domain already took some time to go through it and point out flaws, comment on the methodology and gave a recommendation to either publish it or fix mistakes. It’s not the ability to do it, but that it actually already happened. And it has to be other researchers from the same field.

And there is even another possible step after that, if an independent other research group decides to reproduce the experiment and confirm and verify the results.

A lot of them will have a front matter, a Wikipedia article. Be cited a lot. And you’ll find them in a university library. You might even have access to a library’s catalogue without being a student or member. Being peer-reviewed will be in the description.

And the bogus “journals” are kind of well-known. I think you’ll find information with a simple Google search.

For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_journals

“peer-reviewed” is always within the first sentences if you click on something.

It’s peer reviewed if it has the name of a peer-reviewed journal on it. If it’s on arxiv (a pre-print server) it’s not. (Or not yet, or published on several platforms/journals.)