But it's it ethical for the site owner to block access to random people and companies in the internet to _my_ data? I posted that tweet with the expectation that it's gonna be publicly available. Now the owner of the site is breaking that expectation. I would say that this part is also unethical.
Especially since they're not moderating things or anything.
Agreed. However, it's probably covered by their terms of service.
Same thing with the recent reddit kerfuffle. I'd have much preferred a Usenet 2.0 instead of centralizing global communications in the hands of a handful of private companies with associated user-hostile incentive structures.
> especially target the first author because they have normally done the work
As someone living with a recently promoted? (is that the correct term?) PhD in social sciences, this surprises me. Is that something specific for my country, for social sciences or my wife simply landed in a case full of rotten apples?
In computer science the first author does the work and is usually a PhD student. The last author is usually the professor that pushed and helped develop the idea, provided funding, and probably wrote or was heavily involved in writing the paper’s abstract, intro and conclusion sections — the bulk of “framing” the work.
But there are exceptions. Some profs are less student-oriented or don’t like delegating so much, and remain “individual contributors” deep in their careers. Those tend to publish nonzero number of first- and single-author papers.
Edit: I’ve noticed that in Theory and Algorithms, profs tend to take first author even though the student slaved out the proofs. That field is kind of an outlier in that it’s close pure math, and I think borrows cultural artifacts from math research.
In a lot of math disciplines, the papers follow the Hardy-Littlewood rule, so the author names are ordered alphabetically [1]. Maybe, that's what you've been noticing. In my area (programming languages, which may be sometimes theoretical but it's mostly a mixed bag), I noticed only one group follow that convention. Others follow the "first author is the main contributor, last author is the advisor" convention you described.
At least in the fields I've published in, first author does the work (or at least most of it, almost always including writing the paper) and last author secured the funding. Sometimes authors are listed in alphabetical order, in which case one or two are usually listed as "corresponding author". The less-senior corresponding author usually did the work, and the more-senior corresponding author is usually either the one who secured the funding, or a long-term member of the research group who is likely to actually be around to answer correspondence in the future (and who also probably helped out enough to be worth corresponding with).
I think it's pretty field specific. In a lot of CS for example the first author did most of the work and the last author got the funding. The people in the middle may have done varying degrees of work ranging from helping substantially with the implementation, evaluation or writing of the paper to once having read the paper abstract :)
It's definitely more normal in the social sciences for the senior author to be first, so your wife's experience is probably not strange for her field. What people assume about author order really varies a ton between fields.
Hey that's cool! Btw, I see the developer is listed as WunderFlix GmbH. You really registered a company just for side project, does that mean it makes enough money to justify the costs of a proper company?
I'm not sure a FrontPage site would be much better. It's also a big mess of generated markup you'd have to go through manually, if you didn't have the proper FP version.
Hi, that's a nice book reference. I've ran into this thread a bit late, but do you know if that book is still relevant (it's published in 1936, Wikipedia says) or are there more modern works that incorporate those ideas and work with them?
It is still relevant, They updated the copy in 1985 to keep it modern but also true to the original. The straightforward message of that book is as powerful as ever.
As a freelance dev I've worked with a ngo where they paid me to get their junior to create an application. Then another. Then later just to help him with some new concept.
I'm not freelance any more (yet) but if you just wanna chat about it, I'd be happy to relay my experience.
I would like to add a few things on top of the relatively technical reasons why this lack of .com doesn't matter.
I'd say most users won't type "mastodon.com" in their "browsers". They will type "mastodon" in their "internet" or, if technically savvy, into Google first.
Second, from following the fediverse (not just mastodon, but also pixelfed, peertube etc), i have a feeling that they aren't into mainstream, general audience anyway. A lot of them are small focused instances and as such, won't even be attracting new people via Google, but by invites anyway. Many instances have closed registration anyway. So if you need to land anywhere it's likely not on mastodon.social, but something like ...(checks last five accounts to post directly on top of timeline):
icosahedron.website, fostodon.org, mastodon.social, mastodon.technology (my instance) and hackers.town.
> Second, from following the fediverse (not just mastodon, but also pixelfed, peertube etc), i have a feeling that they aren't into mainstream, general audience anyway.
Ultimately this is kind of a problem, as we desperately need an general audience alternative to FB/Twitter that isn't about turning outrage into dollars. Right now I'm sure it's nice to hide from the Eternal September, but in the meantime Facebook is enabling ignorance, wasting everyone's lives on purpose, and proposing laws that only they can afford to comply with.
OP is about Keybase, which is trying to solve the problem of why the whole world isn't using GPG. I'm just pointing out that Mastodon has some public adoption issues still, despite the benefit that it can bring to the world.
Especially since they're not moderating things or anything.