The current American way of doing things consists of maximizing profit, particularly short-term profit. In theory, this should result in better products for customers. In practice, this may work for a very limited time only.

Stick your 996 up there where the sun never shines. Here's a hint for you and your ilk: many of us out there do not want to become billionaires, and do want to have a life outside or jobs. We work to live, we do not live to work.

I have long configured my browser so that my Google searches default to the Web section, rather than the AI Mode one.

We are going to apply better and more pervasive surveillance on you, and you are going to like it!

Mind your bloody business.

It's a Boeing aircraft, after all.

The high-energy physics community will have to do better than that if they want to justify devoting billions to the successor of LHC: there are thousands of other physics research projects that could use those funds far more sensibly.

I will always remember where I was and what I was doing when I first learned about such earth-shattering, epoch-making news.

I think you are being optimistic here.

Those guys sure die following their passion - but they do die.

I did not even know that site existed. I'll probably find out about its replacement.

It is, in all likelihood, logistic growth. Which implies that, for all anybody knows, this might be the start of the plateau region. Or it might not.

They seem to working really hard to become one of the most obnoxious, despicable companies in existence.

And to use your own DNS server: it is not such a difficult task these days.

For as long as institutions keep focusing on the number of papers published by researchers in order to promote the latter, researchers have every incentive to publish as much as they can. Also, the fact that publishers have a vested interest to publish (they get money from those who want to be published) does not help. Anyway, I remember reviewing a paper which was very little more than a rehash of one of the authors' previous papers setting N = 5 . Never mind what N was. I rejected it, but I wonder whether they still got it published somewhere else, after paying.