Standard Ebooks produces free, high-quality ebooks for readers. They meticulously format and proofread public domain texts, creating beautifully typeset, accessible editions optimized for various e-readers. Their goal is to liberate classic literature from inconsistent and often poorly formatted digital versions, offering a superior reading experience akin to well-crafted print books, while also respecting the author's original intent. They encourage community involvement through contributions like proofreading and cover art.
Citizen Lab's November 2024 report analyzes censorship on Amazon.com, revealing the removal or suppression of books challenging China's government. Researchers discovered 89 unavailable titles, primarily concerning Xinjiang, Tibet, Taiwan, and the Chinese Communist Party. While some books were explicitly blocked in specific Amazon marketplaces, others were globally unavailable or suppressed in search results. This censorship likely stems from Amazon's dependence on the Chinese market and its adherence to Chinese regulations, highlighting the conflict between commercial interests and freedom of expression. The report concludes that Amazon's actions ultimately facilitate China's transnational repression efforts.
HN commenters discuss potential motivations behind Amazon's book removals, including copyright issues, content violations (like sexually suggestive content involving minors), and genuine errors. Some express skepticism about the Citizen Lab report, questioning its methodology and suggesting it conflates different removal reasons. Others highlight the difficulty of moderating content at scale and the potential for both over- and under-enforcement. Several commenters point out the lack of transparency from Amazon regarding its removal process, making it difficult to determine the true extent and rationale behind the book bans. The recurring theme is the need for greater clarity and accountability from Amazon on its content moderation practices.
AI tools are increasingly being used to identify errors in scientific research papers, sparking a growing movement towards automated error detection. These tools can flag inconsistencies in data, identify statistical flaws, and even spot plagiarism, helping to improve the reliability and integrity of published research. While some researchers are enthusiastic about the potential of AI to enhance quality control, others express concerns about over-reliance on these tools and the possibility of false positives. Nevertheless, the development and adoption of AI-powered error detection tools continues to accelerate, promising a future where research publications are more robust and trustworthy.
Hacker News users discuss the implications of AI tools catching errors in research papers. Some express excitement about AI's potential to improve scientific rigor and reproducibility by identifying inconsistencies, flawed statistics, and even plagiarism. Others raise concerns, including the potential for false positives, the risk of over-reliance on AI tools leading to a decline in human critical thinking skills, and the possibility that such tools might stifle creativity or introduce new biases. Several commenters debate the appropriate role of these tools, suggesting they should be used as aids for human reviewers rather than replacements. The cost and accessibility of such tools are also questioned, along with the potential impact on the publishing process and the peer review system. Finally, some commenters suggest that the increasing complexity of research makes automated error detection not just helpful, but necessary.
Leaflet.pub is a web application designed for creating and sharing interactive, media-rich documents. Users can embed various content types, including maps, charts, 3D models, and videos, directly within their documents. These documents are easily shareable via a public URL and offer a flexible layout that adapts to different screen sizes. The platform aims to be a user-friendly alternative to traditional document creation tools, allowing anyone to build engaging presentations or reports without requiring coding skills.
The Hacker News comments on Leaflet.pub are generally positive and inquisitive. Several users praise the clean UI and ease of use, particularly for quickly creating visually appealing documents. Some express interest in specific features like LaTeX support, collaborative editing, and the ability to export to different formats. Questions arise regarding the underlying technology, licensing, and long-term sustainability of the project. A few users compare Leaflet.pub to similar tools like Notion and HackMD, discussing potential advantages and disadvantages. There's a clear interest in the project's future development and its potential as a versatile document creation tool.
An analysis of top researchers across various disciplines revealed that approximately 10% publish at incredibly high rates, likely unsustainable without questionable practices. These researchers produced papers at a pace suggesting a new publication every five days, raising concerns about potential shortcuts like salami slicing, honorary authorship, and insufficient peer review. While some researchers naturally produce more work, the study suggests this extreme output level hints at systemic issues within academia, incentivizing quantity over quality and potentially impacting research integrity.
Hacker News users discuss the implications of a small percentage of researchers publishing an extremely high volume of papers. Some question the validity of the study's methodology, pointing out potential issues like double-counting authors with similar names and the impact of large research groups. Others express skepticism about the value of such prolific publication, suggesting it incentivizes quantity over quality and leads to a flood of incremental or insignificant research. Some commenters highlight the pressures of the academic system, where publishing frequently is essential for career advancement. The discussion also touches on the potential for AI-assisted writing to exacerbate this trend, and the need for alternative metrics to evaluate research impact beyond simple publication counts. A few users provide anecdotal evidence of researchers gaming the system by salami-slicing their work into multiple smaller publications.
This post compares the layout models of TeX and Typst, two typesetting systems. TeX uses a box, glue, and penalty model, where content is placed in boxes, connected by flexible glue, and broken into lines/pages based on penalties assigned to different breaks. This system, while powerful and time-tested, can be complex and unintuitive. Typst, in contrast, uses a flow model where content flows naturally into frames, automatically reflowing based on the available space. This offers greater simplicity and flexibility, especially for complex layouts, but sacrifices some fine-grained control compared to TeX's explicit breakpoints and penalties. The author concludes that while both systems are effective, Typst's flow-based model presents a more modern and potentially easier-to-grasp approach to typesetting.
HN commenters largely praised the article for its clear explanation of layout models in TeX and Typst. Several noted the helpful visualizations and the clear comparisons between the two systems. Some discussed the trade-offs between the flexibility of TeX and the predictability of Typst, with some expressing interest in Typst's approach for certain use cases. One commenter pointed out that the article didn't cover all of TeX's complexities, which the author acknowledged. There was also a brief discussion about the potential for combining aspects of both systems.
This blog post discusses the New Yorker's historical and occasionally inconsistent use of diaereses. While the magazine famously uses them on words like "coöperate" and "reëlect," representing a now-archaic pronunciation distinction, its application isn't entirely systematic. The author explores the diaeresis's function in English, highlighting its role in indicating a separate vowel sound, particularly after prefixes. They note the New Yorker's wavering adherence to its own style guide over time, even within the same issue, and suggest this inconsistency stems from the fading awareness of the diaeresis's original purpose. Ultimately, the author concludes the New Yorker's use of the diaeresis is primarily an aesthetic choice, a visual quirk that contributes to the magazine's distinctive identity.
HN commenters largely discuss the inconsistent and often incorrect usage of diaereses and umlauts, particularly in English publications like The New Yorker. Some point out the technical distinctions between the two marks, with the diaeresis indicating separate vowel sounds within a single syllable and the umlaut signifying a fronting or modification of a vowel. Others lament the decline of the diaeresis in modern typesetting and its occasional misapplication as a decorative element. A few commenters mention specific examples of proper and improper usage in various languages, highlighting the nuances of these diacritical marks and the challenges faced by writers and editors in maintaining accuracy. Some express a sense of pedantry surrounding the issue, acknowledging the minor impact on comprehension while still valuing correct usage. There's also some discussion about the specific software and typesetting practices that contribute to the problem.
Summary of Comments ( 73 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43599637
Hacker News users generally praised Standard Ebooks' mission and quality. Several commenters appreciated the attention to detail and craftsmanship applied to the ebook formatting, contrasting it favorably with the often poor quality of commercially available ebooks. Some users highlighted the value of well-formatted ebooks for visually impaired readers using screen readers. A few commenters questioned the long-term viability of relying on donations and volunteered labor, while others suggested potential business models like a Patreon or selling curated collections. The DRM-free nature of the ebooks and the project's commitment to open standards were also commended. A minor point of contention was the choice of fonts, with some expressing preferences for alternatives.
The Hacker News post titled "Standard Ebooks: liberated ebooks, carefully produced for the true book lover" generated a substantial discussion with a variety of viewpoints on the project.
Several commenters expressed strong support for Standard Ebooks and its mission. They praised the high quality of the ebook production, emphasizing the careful attention to detail and the focus on creating a pleasant reading experience. Some specifically highlighted the value of well-formatted ebooks, contrasting them with the often poorly formatted versions available elsewhere. The project's commitment to open standards and public domain works also resonated with many, who viewed it as a valuable contribution to the literary landscape. A few commenters even shared their personal experiences using and enjoying Standard Ebooks, further reinforcing the positive sentiment.
However, some commenters also expressed reservations and criticisms. One recurring theme was the limited selection of books available, given the focus on public domain works. Some users wished for a wider range of titles, including contemporary works. There were also discussions about the project's reliance on donations and the potential challenges of sustaining such a model in the long term. A few commenters questioned the practical necessity of the project, arguing that existing ebook formats and sources were sufficient. There was also a minor debate about specific formatting choices made by Standard Ebooks, highlighting the subjective nature of reading preferences.
Beyond these main points, some commenters offered suggestions for improving the project, such as expanding the catalog, implementing different features, and exploring alternative funding models. Others shared links to similar projects or resources, contributing to a broader conversation about ebook formatting and accessibility. Overall, the comments section reflected a mixture of enthusiasm, skepticism, and constructive feedback, typical of discussions on Hacker News concerning new projects and initiatives.