dlemire
If you read Wikipedia under 'Doctor of Philosophy', you will find that a Ph.D. was once more of a prestigious title you got after doing the scholarship:
"The first higher doctorate in the modern sense was Durham University's DSc, introduced in 1882. This was soon followed by other universities, including the University of Cambridge establishing its ScD in the same year and the University of London transforming its DSc into a research degree in 1885. These were, however, very advanced degrees, rather than research-training degrees at the PhD level—Harold Jeffreys said that getting a Cambridge ScD was "more or less equivalent to being proposed for the Royal Society."
It is still possible to get a doctorate in this manner. Please see wikipedia under 'Doctor of Philosophy by publication'.
"A Doctor of Philosophy by publication (also known as a Ph.D. by Published Work, PhD by portfolio or Ph.D. under Special Regulation) is a manner of awarding a Ph.D. degree offered by some universities in which a series of articles usually with a common theme are published in scholarly, peer-reviewed journals to meet the requirements for the degree, in lieu of presentation of a final dissertation. Many PhD by Publication programs require the submission of a formal thesis and a viva voce."
It is offered in several countries in Europe. The wikipedia entry is incomplete: it is not just offered in the UK.
Furthermore, it is relatively common to get advanced degrees from well known universities (e.g., Harvard) without having an undergraduate degree.
Yet it appears to be a perfectly valid theory. https://www.amazon.com/Viral-Search-COVID-19-Matt-Ridley/dp/...
It is not the first time that this has happened. We were told that Irak had weapons of mass destruction. It was announced at the United Nations. All mainstream news agencies reported it.
For many, many years, the US was 'winning the war' in Vietnam. All news agencies agreed. The US was not winning.
The mere fact that many, even most, people agree with something does not make it true.
Many would say that the overwhelming majority of the academy is left of center. This makes it intuitive that if there is censorship of academics, then the recipients of the censorship would be people left of center. But I do not think it follows that the censors are on the right.
I argue that most of the censorship on campus, be it people being uninvited or forced to resigned, comes from the academy itself. It is true that, quite possibly, the vast majority of the people being censored are on the left, but I think it is also true that the vast majority of the people censoring are also on the left.
The right simply occupies very little room in the academy. It mostly exists outside of the academy.
This is not to say that people on the right (mostly from outside of the academy) do not come in with censorious intentions... but my impression is that most universities are very well protected against external interventions. It is simply not the case that a business leader or a radio show host can easily censor a professor on campus.
So if we are thinking about, say, college professors, I would say that we are mostly dealing with a left-left censorship.
That is, the left is not this uniform block.
Kathleen Stock is a leftist: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-sussex-59084446 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Stock
Bret Weinstein is a leftist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bret_Weinstein
Verushka Lieutenant-Duval is a leftist: https://arts.uottawa.ca/visualarts/people/lieutenant-duval-v...
The people doing the cancelling were on the left.
Faster Population Counts Using AVX2 Instructions, Computer Journal, Volume 61, Issue 1, 2018 https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.07612
I don't know anything about the case being discussed here, but my expectation is that the non-renewal of an adjunct status cannot be compared with getting fired as a tenure or tenure-track professor.
Disclosure: I own her book.
Here is a relevant blog post https://lemire.me/blog/2018/11/13/memory-level-parallelism-i...
So nkurz is correct that, in the paper, N is always equal to the maximum bitwidth of the numerator. I was not careful enough to make sure that the notation of the paper matches the notation of the blog post. So the N from the blog post is the F from the paper. I am sorry about this.
I added the following footnote.
"What is N? If both the numerator n and the divisor d are 32-bit unsigned integers, then you can pick N=64. This is not the smallest possible value. The smallest possible value is given by Algorithm 2 in our paper and it involves a bit of mathematics (note: the notation in my blog post differs from the paper, N becomes F)."
To make it super simple, if you have 32-bit values, then pick N (from the blog post) to be 64 and you are all set. You can do better, but this requires knowing what the divisor is.
It is derived from a U. of Washington report found at: https://evans.uw.edu/sites/default/files/MinWageReport-July2...
To a very good first approximation, academics are assessed by other academics.
There are highly successful super low-overhead journals that do not advertise, do not pay 6-figure salaries. See http://www.jmlr.org/ for example.
If you receive a 300k$ a year grant, then $1k per paper is 0.3% of your budget. And it is not uncommon for medical researchers to get a lot more than 300k$ a year.