I checked the news in my country and they say it's illegal here on the ground that the supreme court ruled "the toxicity is public knowledge."

Stupidity...

Reddit for reference

You almost had me

I mean, if you argue that way during the interview I'd pass... Nobody thinks you're asked to do all that in a one-day interview.

No, "should be" as in, it must be reviewed but can be skipped if there's a concern like revealing the author identity in a double-blind process.

Yes, the Socratic method

Actually, figures should be checked during the reviewing process. It's not an excuse.

What an excellent scheme to keep talents away from entering the red states for a job.

Agreed.

Exactly what I feel about HTML after using QML.

Although there are already comments with good libs, you could also look into services like Weebly.

The biggest problem with Frontiers for me is that there are some handy survey articles that are cited like 500 times. It seems that Interdisciplinary surveys are hard to publish in a traditional journal, and as a result 500 articles cited this handy overview article for readers who would need an overview.

The article I checked was in a reasonable quality, and it's a shame I can't cite it just because it's in Frontiers.

It's how this publisher works. They make it insanely difficult for reviewers to reject a submission.

I'm from Japan. They don't even have judges as corrupt as SCOTUS and still don't allow same sex marriage because the ruling party is conservative. Well, the court ruled it's unconstitutional, but we learned that a law in this country can stay unconstitutional if the government ignores the situation. And apparently 90% of the people (at least on the internet) support that because they are conservative.

Makes me realize how broken my country is. It doesn't even count as corruption because it's lawful. Fucking hell...

Nah, that's rather what right wingers do.

Sometimes I wonder if POTUS could declare national emergency due to an unhinged SCOTUS.

Maybe even that depends on the judges.

I noticed. What I wanted to say was it can become a battle between the correct belief and the wrong belief. Especially if the law itself is interpreted wrongly and scientific evidence is difficult to acquire (which sometimes is).

Also, they often don't read more than a few lines. I applied as a dev for a company which I had many friends inside. They all knew my skills. The problem was the high-level managers because they didn't read the memo (and didn't even read my CV), assumed I can't do engineering because I was an academic at the time.

an engineering manager said during an interview, “OK, we’re going to build a To Do List app right now,” a process that might normally take weeks.

Tbf you can do that in one day with ChatGPT, although it requires some generic software engineering skills. But that's the point.

Even if you don't complete the task, the process of coding can prove your skill level in a positive way.