This looks very promising. Researchers have been complaining since a long time about the fact that publicly-funded, published research was behind paywalls and the alternatives were rather undewhelming when it came to cost for the authors (and their institutions) and peer review methodology. The new approach is quite interesting. In "how it works" it says that the publishing will be immediate after submission and the peer-review will be done *after* publishing, with all article versions being available and linked together. This will be for European Commission-funded researchers, but I hope they will widen the scope later on.

Thanks for the link. This must be the most insightful thing I've read on the internet since a long time, probably ever.

I always get suspicious when seeing such numbers...

Mee too! Next week, I'll replace them with Windows Servers.

You joke, but it's already this way! The prompt on one side would be something like: "write news article about ice carving festival, completed on 02.03.2026. Attached is the list of finalists, their scores and what they carved. The mayor and the sheriff attended. One man choked on their hot-dog in the evening, was rescued by first responders that were stationed on-site". The AI will add fluff to expand this into a two-page article. Then on the reader's side another AI will be used to take the fluff back out and give you the summary: "John Doe won the yesterday's ice carving competition by carving a life-size mermaid. Do you want more details?".

Plumbing is the new coding.

Uhh.... yes?

Yes, it also used to be that you could opt out from appearing in one.

Indeed! Thanks!

Score:5, Informative? Seriously? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Others gave also valid answers, but here is one more: the experiments that are designed for testing a certain model or measure a certain property are, especially the beginning, as simple as possible (and as complicated as necessary) in order to eliminate as many error sources as possible. Also ther factors, such as duration, are also taken into account. In this case flyid dynamics was developed using water and air, because these were the relevant materials for our applications, are easily accessible, cheap etc. But then you end up with a physical theory that is *expected * to be valid for many different materials (based on the assumptions made), but has only been actually validated on only a handful of them. As the theory or model gets tested on more systems the boundaries of the feasibility of the experiment are stretched. Unless an experiment invalidates your theory, there is no reason to believe that the theory will not be valid for even more extreme cases, but you don't really *know* that. So here we are, after 100 years, waiting for that drop to fall. We are not exactly biting our nails in fear that laminar viscous flow theory will be invalidated (I would suppose the first few droplets took care of that) but why not gather more data while there is still pitch in the funnel?

Nope. I got something similar some time ago. It would not budge. I had to put it aside for a few hours for the bttery to die.

From the data in the report that the GP posted it does not seem that there is a negative effect of DRLs. They are either effective or irrelevant. Which makes sense: DRLs in sunlight do not blind you, they are just barely noticeable.

Hopefully, this year is about to end, soon.

The prices are a fractional multiple of a dollar, you see. So... Dollar Store!