A Medium blog that summarizes papers from the physics arXiv preprint server, with topics from quantum physics to statistics and computing.
HN links it for posts like the Taleb GMO paper and the P≠NP and quantum article, which commenters discuss and use as starting points for related reading.
The arXiv serves to unbundle the dissemination part of journal publishing for the filtering and certifying part. The arXiv is only trying to disseminate, and it is happy (for now) to let traditional journals and other sources do the filtering and certifying.
Let me reply to your points in particular:
> Discoverability is a big part of it as well, at least at the user end...If there was a geoRxiv then I would probably browse it more regularly because the chances of me finding something relevant would be much higher.
Are you just talking about the individual subject areas (ecology, genetics, etc.)? The arXiv has those as well, which you can subscribe to. Few physicists subscribe to the entire thing. (Incidentally, folks may find https://scirate.com/ filters a bit better.)
Of course, the arXiv doesn't have a dedicated biology section, much less sub-divisions, but this is because there hasn't been enough interest.
> The second reason, which is not unrelated, is that–at least with peer-reviewed journals–the quality of the work in field- or subfield-specific venues is often far higher than in the sort of pan-scientific journals like Science or Nature.
The main point of the arxiv is to put everything in one place which is permanent, searchable, sortable, freely available etc. Filters generally come from elsewhere, such as the aforementioned sections or SciRate, or by simply looking at arXiv papers published in certain journals (without needing journal…
If you are interested in the implications of P vs. NP, as opposed to a survey of the situation around the problem, check out this excellent essay [1] by Scott Aaronson. He goes into interesting consequences about the nature of quantum computing, simulation of a human mind, and time travel, among other topics.
There is also another interesting article [2] by Arkady Bolotin at Ben-Gurion University in Israel, who argues that the lack of macroscopic quantum behavior implies P!=NP. Basically, macroscopic quantum behavior would imply that the universe is computing the solution to a NP-hard problem in violation with currently accepted laws of physics. Also, see this debate between Bolotin and an educated commenter [3].
[1]: http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/philos.pdf [pdf]
[2]: https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-astounding-link-between-the-p-np-problem-and-the-quantum-nature-of-universe-7ef5eea6fd7a#.hybznxnd5
[3]: https://www.researchgate.net/post/P_NP_and_quantum_nature_of_universe-any_thoughts
>even though the scientific consensus is that GMO crops are no more dangerous than non-GMO crops.
* "The State of the Science :
Most of the evidence for the safety of genetically modified food crops comes from studies that only look at short-term effects … and from information provided by the same
companies who sell those seeds."
http://www.nymc.edu/sanewman/PDFs/GeneWatch_State_of_the%20Science.pdf
* Taleb: ''Wrong to say "the scientific method is based on evidence"; it is based on knowing how to deal with absence of evidence.'' ( https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/528646752124297216 )
* The Physics arXiv Blog: https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/genetically-modified-organisms-risk-global-ruin-says-black-swan-author-e8836fa7d78
* "The Precautionary Principle (with Application to the Genetic Modification of Organisms)" http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.5787
My stance on GMOs changed from pro to very sceptical when I got acquainted with the Talebian viewpoint: https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/genetically-modified-organisms-risk-global-ruin-says-black-swan-author-e8836fa7d78
Anyone got a good counter argument besides the generic "classical breeding isn't acually safer", which I don't buy without further detailing? The reason I'm asking is that over the years, I was often sceptical about his opinions and the way he presented them, but in the end Taleb always turned out to be right on the few predictions he did make, which is no small feat. If GMOs really are a global systemic risk, this would be an important science fact to get right, and I want to hear all sides. I figured there should be some competent people on HN.
> has built some impressive predictive systems
Do you have any links to examples? I'm not aware of any systems built with HTMs that I'd consider "impressive" relative to what ANNs are doing these days, e.g. learning to play Atari games by watching the screen [1], approaching human performance on object classification in unrestricted images [2], or learning to execute simple python programs by reading the source code [3].
[1] https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-last-ai-breakthrough-deepmind-made-before-google-bought-it-for-400m-7952031ee5e1
[2] http://karpathy.github.io/2014/09/02/what-i-learned-from-competing-against-a-convnet-on-imagenet/
[3] http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.4615
May I add David Deutsch's (not yet peer-reviewed, but promising) paper on the Contructor Theory of Information?
The Physics arXiv Blog writes about it here:
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/deeper-than-quantum-mechanics-david-deutschs-new-theory-of-reality-9b8281bc793a
For the curious, the link to the paper can be found at the end of the article.
I remember being downvoted by circle of HN folks who weren't comfortable with Information transfer using Quantum Teleportation. Depite efforts to refute it, here's a team that suceeded doing exactly this => http://phys.org/news/2014-05-team-accurately-teleported-quantum-ten.html*