Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[naim027]

Is tuna cat food?

No, they eat McDonald's,

They eat Weed too

[somac.]

Also: about peer reviewed papers - make sure you check who it was that reviewed the paper and where it was published. I could send in a paper which states human shit cures cancer to an "institute" in India and get it published in some BS "science journal" with 50 peer reviews from some indian scientists nobody has ever heard of and probably don't even exist or who do exist and only care about making money.

I would only have to pay a few thousand dollars.

Best way to deal with this is to look up the journal's "Impact Factor". This shows how many times papers have been cited in other journals and their resultant quality.

IF >20=Science, Nature, JAMA
IF <2=Indian Times, DUH, etc.

This is not as good a guide as it once was. There is a lot of stuff that is absolutely not reproduciable in the higher up journals. Publishing has always been somewhat political and a who you know type thing and I feel that it is only getting worse. Though in this case I imagine the Indian Times is indeed shitter. But certainly don't trust the leading journals.

I myself am listed as a author (not first or last) in a recent enough paper published in Nature communications and currently have another paper in the same journal under review.

I also published in Nature, both as a first and last author (not recently, though) and it was very tough to get done as they receive vastly more papers than they could publish.
Many people in our field never had a paper published there and several of mine were rejected as well, then published in lesser journals.

Yep, they would get flooded with papers. We don't often publish in such high ranking journals but if we think we have even a small chance we'll generally take it. No loss if they don't accept, especially if outright rejection (as it's quicker), then just move down the line. Having those high ranking papers does help come grant time so it's definitely worth a shot. Mind you no grants for me this round, but thanks to Bitcoin I really don't care anymore.  

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[lightfoot]

[jojo69]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-17/canadian-teen-arrested-in-crypto-theft-worth-36-5-million?cmpid=BBD111821_OUS&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=211118&utm_campaign=openamericas&sref=6uww027M

[Richy_T]

I've stopped on this one. No more Nazis in this thread.

Hey, bitcoin seems to be back. Wonder when it will pass 120k.

Works for me. Be nice to see a 6 at the beginning again.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[philipma1957]

So the build back better passed today a 1.6 trillion passed in the house.

maybe the senate does it quickly

and biden and co will have passed over 2.5 trillion this fall.


the news 📰 actually showed the treas printing 100 💯 $ bills.

I will see if I can find the clip they showed.


100 dollar bills printing video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV7vxfk__Uw


pretty sure they used the video above.

at the 15 second mark.

well the news was true for a change.

[JimboToronto]

-

How old are you?

[goldkingcoiner]

Also: about peer reviewed papers - make sure you check who it was that reviewed the paper and where it was published. I could send in a paper which states human shit cures cancer to an "institute" in India and get it published in some BS "science journal" with 50 peer reviews from some indian scientists nobody has ever heard of and probably don't even exist or who do exist and only care about making money.

I would only have to pay a few thousand dollars.

Best way to deal with this is to look up the journal's "Impact Factor". This shows how many times papers have been cited in other journals and their resultant quality.

IF >20=Science, Nature, JAMA
IF <2=Indian Times, DUH, etc.

This is not as good a guide as it once was. There is a lot of stuff that is absolutely not reproduciable in the higher up journals. Publishing has always been somewhat political and a who you know type thing and I feel that it is only getting worse. Though in this case I imagine the Indian Times is indeed shitter. But certainly don't trust the leading journals.

I myself am listed as a author (not first or last) in a recent enough paper published in Nature communications and currently have another paper in the same journal under review.

I also published in Nature, both as a first and last author (not recently, though) and it was very tough to get done as they receive vastly more papers than they could publish.
Many people in our field never had a paper published there and several of mine were rejected as well, then published in lesser journals.

Yep, they would get flooded with papers. We don't often publish in such high ranking journals but if we think we have even a small chance we'll generally take it. No loss if they don't accept, especially if outright rejection (as it's quicker), then just move down the line. Having those high ranking papers does help come grant time so it's definitely worth a shot. Mind you no grants for me this round, but thanks to Bitcoin I really don't care anymore.  

Whats the APC for publishing in Nature? 9-11k USD? Might as well just submit your paper to Arxiv and hope somebody stumbles across it before you die of old age.

[Biodom]

Also: about peer reviewed papers - make sure you check who it was that reviewed the paper and where it was published. I could send in a paper which states human shit cures cancer to an "institute" in India and get it published in some BS "science journal" with 50 peer reviews from some indian scientists nobody has ever heard of and probably don't even exist or who do exist and only care about making money.

I would only have to pay a few thousand dollars.

Best way to deal with this is to look up the journal's "Impact Factor". This shows how many times papers have been cited in other journals and their resultant quality.

IF >20=Science, Nature, JAMA
IF <2=Indian Times, DUH, etc.

This is not as good a guide as it once was. There is a lot of stuff that is absolutely not reproduciable in the higher up journals. Publishing has always been somewhat political and a who you know type thing and I feel that it is only getting worse. Though in this case I imagine the Indian Times is indeed shitter. But certainly don't trust the leading journals.

I myself am listed as a author (not first or last) in a recent enough paper published in Nature communications and currently have another paper in the same journal under review.

I also published in Nature, both as a first and last author (not recently, though) and it was very tough to get done as they receive vastly more papers than they could publish.
Many people in our field never had a paper published there and several of mine were rejected as well, then published in lesser journals.

Yep, they would get flooded with papers. We don't often publish in such high ranking journals but if we think we have even a small chance we'll generally take it. No loss if they don't accept, especially if outright rejection (as it's quicker), then just move down the line. Having those high ranking papers does help come grant time so it's definitely worth a shot. Mind you no grants for me this round, but thanks to Bitcoin I really don't care anymore.  

Whats the APC for publishing in Nature? 9-11k USD? Might as well just submit your paper to Arxiv and hope somebody stumbles across it before you die of old age.

Yes, indeed, now is as it switched to OA, but it used to be much less, but it is paid from grants anyway, not from the own pocket. But the true new outrage is the review charge (~2K euro). Now, I mostly teach (don't want to write grants anymore), but when i published there last, there was no charge for review...it is quite ridiculous.
Arxiv is great (and very popular) for physics, much less so for Biology.

[Hueristic]

Guys, Am I invisible today? Just attention-seeking.

Yes... you are a bit annoying, and hopefully, you will be able to grow the fuck up at some point.. sooner rather than later would be better, but many of us realize and appreciate that growing up takes time and cannot be rushed, even if we have some expectations and hopes in regards to someone like you who may well need grandma to come down and to shut off your computer for a while... but yeah, maybe even grandma lost control of the situation...

Well, I am not going to argue with you. I believe you are a typing Bot. Who doesn't have any sense (?). The Typing Bot uses the Internet resources to write their shit.

Are you afraid? Just because I am here for almost 18 hours a day? I believe you are afraid of me, at the same point you could lose your position to me in this forum? My grandma is not alive anymore, so, you could send your's so she can shut down my PC.
I believe she cannot shut down my PC since I am not under 18 anymore.

Thanks to @cAPSLOCK, He is the real guy and he knows what to do with whom?

Authorities from multiple countries believed that Bahrun Naim was killed fighting the
Syrian army in Abu Hammam, Syria in November 2017. Nonetheless, he continued to
operate discreetly, building social media platforms to disseminate propaganda,
recruiting handlers and creating bots to spread computer generated content to large
audiences.

[lightfoot]

100 dollar bills printing video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV7vxfk__Uw

I'll be damned, it DOES go Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Go figure.

[lightfoot]

Yes, indeed, now is as it switched to OA, but it used to be much less, but it is paid from grants anyway, not from the own pocket. But the true new outrage is the review charge (~2K euro). Now, I mostly teach (don't want to write grants anymore), but when i published there last, there was no charge for review...it is quite ridiculous.
Arxiv is great (and very popular) for physics, much less so for Biology.

Holy goat fucking, I have been out of the business for awhile. The whole point was subscriptions (esp library subs) covered the cost of paper review, only the Open Access journals were charging review and publish fees. Didn't realize Nature and Science were doing it.

Times change. But as they say all God's creatures have to EAT.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[DaRude]

Straw. Man. Try harder.

Nope. I'm just curious how people now are behaving like Nazis. I have met some real Nazis, both in the US atomic bomb programs and from the ex-Vichy regime.

They were quite unlike people who wish to vaccinate people these days, you might call them.... chilling, if you had met them.

We've had vaccinations for more than two centuries. The issue is not with the 'vaccine' itself. Indeed, many of those having issues with what is going on are vaccinated themselves. So yes, strawman as independently called out by someone else too.

Since we're calling out logical fallacies,

Slippery Slope
In a slippery slope argument, a course of action is rejected because, with little or no evidence, one insists that it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends. The slippery slope involves an acceptance of a succession of events without direct evidence that this course of events will happen.

https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Slippery-Slope.html

[ErisDiscordia]

It might be instructive to become familiar with how the Nazis rose to power and how they ran propaganda against the Jews. They didn't just get voted in then the next day invade Poland and throw Jews on the trains.

It might be instructive, indeed. They rose to power on the back of a frustrated population devastated by decades of economic turmoil by promising them to fight against traditional banking elites and an all-powerful Jewish conspiracy threatening to destroy their nation from within through Marxism and decadent gender ideology. While campaigning, they portrayed themselves as the sole defenders of free speech, under attack for speaking truth to power.  Sounds exactly like the people pushing vaccine passports, amirite?

In Nuremberg, Germany, there is a massive building called the "Congress Hall". This intimidating, colosseum-inspired Nazi building stands next to the former Party rally grounds, where the Nazis held their massive 100K+ people gatherings before WWII. It was to be used just once a year, for one speech delivered by Hitler standing in a precise spot where the sunlight would illuminate him in a way that would appear to be divine. Due to the outbreak of WWII it wasn't finished.



Today it houses a museum with a permanent exhibition called "fascination and terror" which documents the Nazis' rise to power from their humble beginnings in the early 20s to the brink of WWII. A visit to this museum is mandatory to all German school children and all German soldiers. Because the Germans understand full well that to fight ideologies such as Nazism, it is vital to combat historical illiteracy which is fucking rampant in this goddamn thread! A vocal minority in this thread would do well to go see the reality of how Nazis rose to power and what they did with that power instead of parroting talking points about how vaccine passports are literally stars of David. You can always change your vaccine status. To the Nazis, you could never stop being a Jew. I can't believe I have to explain this.

Just because you are criticising the government, doesn't mean you are a free thinker or correct. What a colossal waste of intellectual capacity on full display.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[AlcoHoDL]

Yes, indeed, now is as it switched to OA, but it used to be much less, but it is paid from grants anyway, not from the own pocket. But the true new outrage is the review charge (~2K euro). Now, I mostly teach (don't want to write grants anymore), but when i published there last, there was no charge for review...it is quite ridiculous.
Arxiv is great (and very popular) for physics, much less so for Biology.

Holy goat fucking, I have been out of the business for awhile. The whole point was subscriptions (esp library subs) covered the cost of paper review, only the Open Access journals were charging review and publish fees. Didn't realize Nature and Science were doing it.

Times change. But as they say all God's creatures have to EAT.

I've published several articles in various prestigious scientific journals, the last one was in 2020. I never had to pay a cent! The only limit was the size of the article. If it exceeded a certain number of pages (I think the limit was about 10 pages of two-column format), then I would have to pay for the extra pages.

2000 € / review is outrageous!

Arxiv is great, Perelman published his proof of the Poincaré Conjecture there. Free, and serves its purpose just fine.

[lightfoot]

I've published several articles in various prestigious scientific journals, the last one was in 2020. I never had to pay a cent! The only limit was the size of the article. If it exceeded a certain number of pages (I think the limit was about 10 pages of two-column format), then I would have to pay for the extra pages.

2000 € / review is outrageous!

Ok, it might be their "open access" journals to compete with PLoS. I think it was Science Advances or something like that and Nature was doing one too. If open access then yeah you have to pay but I believe the overall quality suffers (like PLoS)

Arxiv is great, Perelman published his proof of the Poincaré Conjecture there. Free, and serves its purpose just fine.

As we say, the odds are good, but the goods are odd.