The updates are not automatic and there is no way to make them automatic. Everyone who got bit by this pressed the âoeupdateâ button.

No. Speedometer etc are all on their own independent display behind the steering wheel.

The question isn't 'why don't academic publish in open access journals', its really 'why aren't the open access journals as good'?

I publish in both. My papers get read *more* in the open access journals. But the quality of scholarship of those papers, and the ones published along with it is lower. The simple reason is that the open access journals need my money to stay afloat - the fees I pay them to 'publish' (really for the copyediting, layout and coordinating peer review) bias their decision making. Its like an investment bank paying a credit rating firm to rate their product. Guess what - that shit smells like roses! Traditional journals are more likely to be hard-nosed, rejecting more papers up front and picking tough peer reviewers. They make their money by keeping their subscribers who want a monthly issue full of rigorously reviewed worked.

So, like my peers, I trust papers published in the traditional journals more than the open access journals, because I know that there is less financial bias. And when I have a choice because I have a great piece of scholarship to publish, I want it in with the other work that I trust myself.

Probably because its a summary of a press release, rather than the actual paper. This was a computer simulation exercise - a model. No patients were actually treated. There was no prescribing. There were no superior outcomes. Its all hypothetical.

Could an AI outperform an MD? Sure, could happen and probably will eventually. But this model doesn't show that. It just shows that its easier to model health care in silicon than the real world. Remember we can cure cancer in mice - models aren't the same thing as reality.

This is the most mercenary discussion I've seen on Slashdot, ever.

If your employer isn't loyal to you (within reason) then you don't want to be there. Most of the organizations I have worked for - including some very big ones - actually do try to avoid laying people off in a downturn, at least skilled white-collar workers. In a knowledge industry if you burn your workers every knows and it gets tougher to hire in the future.

You already know whats right for you - the other job. That means you need to leave - but doesn't mean leaving the current company (& coworkers!) in the lurch. Ask the new employer if they will give you a couple of months before you start; if so, get an offer letter with those terms. Seriously - I just hired a programmer and a project manager on these terms (2 months and 3 months respectively). They needed the time to close out projects, train new hires etc. I was impressed that they were loyal to their old employer - and presume they will leave me one day with the same grace and style. Their old employers (who couldn't match my offer) were pleased that they were willing to stay that long, and will in the future give them glowing recommendations - and might hire them back. Co-workers don't feel shafted etc. Did I want them sooner? Of course - but they were the right people and I'm willing to wait.

Now, your current employer might tell you to stuff it, and to clear out your desk. Or that they will hire someone and they only want 2 weeks and then your out. Fine - you have been loyal and done your part, and the new employer presumably will take you sooner.

Loyalty means doing your best in a hard situation, not picking between 2 weeks notice and staying forever.