Well, Typst is explicitly a no-go for anyone who has to submit a manuscript, until it they get a damn HTML representation, so Pandoc can get it to LaTeX. There's practically nowhere I could use Typst except my own notes, and I've tried!
There are currently 252 Catholic cardinals, but only 135 are eligible to cast ballots as those over the age of 80 can take part in debate but cannot vote.
You're telling me the Catholic church has more term limits than the US Supreme Court?
While I agree that publishers charging high open access fees is a bad practice, the ACS journals aren't the kind of bottom-of-the-barrel predatory journals you're describing. ACS nano in particular is a well respected journal for nanochem, with a generally well-respected editorial board, and any suspicions of editorial misconduct of the type you're describing would be a three-alarm fire in the community.
I will also note that this article is labelled "free to read" -- when the authors have paid an (as you said, exhorbitant) publishing fee to have the paper be open access, the label used by ACS journals is "open access". The "free to read" label would be an editorial decision, typically because the article is relevant outside the typical readerbase of the journal, and so it makes sense both from a practical perspective (and more cynically for the journal's PR) to make it available to everyone, not just the community who has institutional access.
Also, the fact that the authors had a little fun with the title doesn't mean its low-effort slop -- this was actually an important critique at the time, because for years people had been adding different modifications to graphene and making a huge deal about how revolutionary their new magic material was.
The point this paper was trying to make is that finding modifications to graphene which make it better for electrocatalysis is not some revolutionary thing, because almost any modification works. It was actually a useful recalibration for expectations, as well as a good laugh.
Edit: typo
My favorite overheard undergrad story:
I was walking past the lecture hall right after an organic chemistry midterm, and there was a cluster of 4-5 students talking about the exam. One asked about question 8b, and another one said "you're not supposed to mix nitric acid and ethanol, that makes TNT, right?" I had to stifle a chuckle as I walked by.
So close, and yet so far! Nitrated acetone is explosive, and TNT (trinitrotoluene) is also made with nitric acid, but toluene is a much more complex molecule than acetone. If those undergrads could figure out how to turn acetone into TNT efficiently, they'd get a Nobel!
Doesn't exist. Some metals can form organometallic complexes (with CO, CN, methyl groups), in which case you get for instance "organic mercury" compounds. Iron can also do that, but that's not what theyre talking about here.
What they mean is "biogenic" iron. The snail precipitates dissolved iron and sulfur in the water to form its shell out of iron sulfide. Its a different physical structure, but chemically similar to iron pyrite (fools gold).
Jeeeeez that was a lot. I get the sense that the kernel has worked as well as it has because people saw it as separate from geopolitics and so didnt discuss them...now that politics has wedged its way in I feel like it may have opened that door permanently.
Well we wouldn't want Proton, it would be 2000x less lightweight than electron! /s
It seems to me that Tauri is maybe a better direction to invest resources in than a direct electron-but-Firefox. Its lighter weight and better sandboxed, and can presumably be configured to run with a Gecko engine instead of a chromium-based webview. I have no idea its status, but geckoview does seem to exist.
To be honest, their demand that OpenSUSE rebrand left a bad taste in my mouth. I get the logic behind it, but the time for that passed a long time ago (probably about 15 years ago).
tl;dr: science is in the eye of the beholder, you can only know if it's science if the methods are transparent and you have access to data, as well as critiques from unbiased parties.
This thread seems to have formed two sides:
I would say that "closed"/unpublished science may be science, but since peer review and replication of results are the only way we can tell if something is legitimate science, the problem is that we simply can't know until a third party (or preferably, many third parties) have reviewed it.
There are a lot of forms that review can take. The most thorough is to release it to the world and let anyone read and review it, and so it and the opinions of others with expertise in the subject are also public. Anyone can read both the publications and response, do their own criticism, and know whether it is science.
If "closed" science has been heavily reviewed and critiqued internally, by as unbiased a party as possible, then whoever has access to the work and critique can know it's science, but the scientific community and the general public will never be able to be sure.
The points folks have made about individuals working in secret making progress actually support this; I'll use Oppenheimer as an example.
In the 40s, no one outside the Manhattan project knew how nuclear bombs were made. Sure, they exploded, but no one outside that small group knew if the reasoning behind why they exploded was correct.
Now, through released records, we know what the supporting theory was, and how it was tested. We also know that subsequent work based on that theory (H-bomb development, etc.) and replication (countries other than the US figuring out how to make nukes, in some cases without access to US documents on how it was originally done) was successful and supported the original explanations of why it worked. So now we all know that it was science.
Photoshopped, unfortunately. They change, but not that much.
Pro tip: use zotero. Its an open-source bibliography program, you can export the entire bibliography at once in whatever format you want.
Sure, but they can't build Pandoc translation against an experimental format, so no LaTeX anytime soon.