As noted earlier, I have a monograph published with Springer, so this rankles in a personal way.
wake up babe, new Yud profile pic just dropped
(And by "just" I mean "sometime in the past three weeks or so". I don't skim his exTwitter feed for sneerables very often.)
Typo:
Thorat didn’t look hrough his “own” book either
It would appear CNN was also at the eugenics conference? Why are all these mainstream news orgs at a 200-person event where all the speakers are eugenicists and racists?
https://bsky.app/profile/bmceuen.bsky.social/post/3lmmtefdl422j
And in response to an Atlantic subhead saying "Perpetuating humanity should be a cross-politics consensus, but the left was mostly absent at a recent pro-natalism conference":
yeah, weird that the left wasn’t present at the Fourteen Words conference
https://bsky.app/profile/jamellebouie.net/post/3lmmqjx3fdc2e
yet I hold
space for it
As a wise friend of mine said years ago, when hipsters drinking PBR were having a cultural moment, "You can say you're drinking piss beer 'ironically', but at the end of the day, you're still drinking piss beer."
Having read all the Asimov novels when I was younger....
spoiler
The Caves of Steel: human killed because he was mistaken for the android that he built in his own image.
The Robots of Dawn: robot killed (positronic brain essentially bricked) to prevent it from revealing the secrets of how to build robots that can pass for human. It had been a human's sex partner, but that wasn't the motive. No one thought banging a robot was that strange; the only thing that perturbed them was the human getting emotional fulfillment from it (the planet Aurora is a decadent world where sex is for entertainment and fashion, not relationships).
The Naked Sun: the villain manipulates robots to commit crimes by having multiple robots each do a part of the task, so that the "a robot shall not harm a human being" software directive is never activated. He tries to poison a man by having one robot dose a water carafe and another unknowingly pour from it, but being a poisoning noob, he screws up the dosage and the victim lives. His only successful murder involves a human as well; he programs a robot to hand a blunt object to a human during a violent quarrel with the intended victim.
"Conspiracy" is a colorful way of describing what might boil down to Gagniuc and two publicists, or something like that, since one person can hop across multiple IP addresses, etc. But, I mean, a pitifully tiny conspiracy still counts (and is, IMO, even funnier).
A comment by Wikipedia editor David Eppstein, theoretical computer science prof at UC Irvine:
Despite Malparti warning that "it would be a waste of time for everyone" I took a look at the book myself. 60 pages of badly-worded boring worked examples with no theory before we even get to the possibility of having more than two states. As Malparti said, there is no theory, or rather theory is alluded to in vague and inaccurate form without any justification. For instance the steady state (still of a two-state chain) is first mentioned on 46 as "the unique solution" to an equilibrium equation, and is stated to be "eventually achieved", with no discussion of exceptional cases where the solution is not unique or not reached in the limit, and no discussion of the fact that it is never actually achieved, only found in the limit. Do not use for anything. I should have taken the fact that I could not find a review even on MR and zbl as a warning.
It's been a while since I've seen a math book review that said "Do not use for anything."
"This book is not a place of honor..."
Sometimes, checking the Talk page of a Wikipedia article can be entertaining.
In short: There has been a conspiracy to insert citations to a book by a certain P. Gagniuc into Wikipedia. This resulted in said book gaining about 900 citations on Google Scholar from people who threw in a footnote for the definition of a Markov chain. The book, Markov Chains: From Theory to Implementation and Experimentation (2017), is actually really bad. Some of the comments advocating for its inclusion read like chatbot (bland, generic, lots of bullet points). Another said that it should be included because it's "the most reliable book on the subject, and the one that is part of ChatGPT training set".
This has been argued out over at least five different discussion pages.
To reduce the traffic to their server...
The response: