Paperpile Blog

I thought the same thing until I discovered Paperpile. I highly recommend checking it out. https://paperpile.com

For anyone who is interested in the different options for reference management, I've been sporadically maintaining a webpage about the various options since 2015: https://maxmasnick.com/projects/reference-managers/ I re-un-recommended Mendeley back in June 2018 when this news first broke. (I was initially too sketched out by Elsevier to recommend Mendeley, and this just confirms these suspicions.) tl;dr Zotero is a pretty good bet for most people, especially since they added support for citation management in Google Docs at the end of last year (very important for academic writers). PaperPile (https://paperpile.com) and Papers (https://www.papersapp.com) are also worth checking out.

If going this route I'd also recommend checking out my brother's reference management tool Paperpile http://paperpile.com [0] It's kind of like Gmail for your papers—keyboard shortcuts, fancy Google Docs integrations, auto-downloading etc. He spent a couple of years after finishing his PhD to make his dream reference management tool with a couple of friends. [0]: I also voiceovered the video on the homepage. A Redditor noted my natural voice is too cartoon-y for the subject matter which I found hilarious, and have since accepted.

For organizing your papers, Paperpile (http://paperpile.com) is an excellent up-and-coming reference management tool. It integrates with Google Drive and has a full-featured PDF annotator and note-taker. It's helped me out tremendously in organizing my academic research.

Really cool to see this! I'm sure the effort required to make it open source will pay off in fostering an active technical community. Given the target market I'm sure you have many highly skilled users who would love (at the very least) to fix their favorite bugs. On a related note, recently at http://paperpile.com/ we've been thinking about ways to help our users connect their reference manager with web-based writing environments like ShareLaTeX. We've had some ideas about how to do this simply and cleanly, but I suppose now we could show you guys (via pull request) rather than tell now. :-)

Paperpile | Full-stack + Backend Engineers (Typescript, Node) | Remote | https://paperpile.com/jobs Paperpile helps researchers and students to find, organize, read, and write academic papers. Our user base is growing fast, and so is the team around it. You take responsibility for substantial parts of our codebase and develop and ship new features and products. In a small team, everything you do matters and has a direct impact on the work of researchers and scientists worldwide - 2 full stack engineers - 1 backend engineer Stack: TypeScript, Node.JS, React, React Native, AWS, MongoDB We would love to hear from you. Please apply at: https://apply.workable.com/paperpile

I would avoid Mendeley. Firstly, they are trying to create a researchgate-style social media spam network layer. Secondly they are owned by the maximally vile Elsevier. Thirdly, their software quality is poor eg. they couldn’t get sync working properly for maybe 5 years (until I gave up). On the other hand, I love https://paperpile.com/app

I am a big fan of paperpile: https://paperpile.com I've used Endnote, Mendeley, and Zotero before and found them all to have their own issues. Paperpile is not perfect but it shines in a few places and I really like it. The chrome plugin adds an 'add to paperpile' button to places like google scholar making it easy to add citations. It also is designed for writing in Google Docs and makes it very easy and quick to add citations. For some, Google Docs may be a dealbreaker, but if you need to collaboratively write/edit a manuscript it's much better than the alternatives in my opinion (esp. because everyone can write/edit at the same time).

> typing errors aren't a great source of errors. That’s not true. On the contrary, typing accounts for a substantial fraction of all errors (and refactoring could transform even more logic errors into catchable type errors). The best research (best methodology, sample size, by far) on the subject [1] puts the lower bound for the fraction of type errors in JavaScript at 15%. [1] https://paperpile.com/app/p/3070170e-933e-0956-82ec-879fb924e452

> What is reasoning if not the ability to assess "if this" and conclude "then that"? A lot of things. There are entire fields of study which seek to define reasoning, breaking it down into areas that include logic and inference, problem solving, creative thinking, etc. > If you can do it with logic gates, who's to say you can't do it with transformers or one of the newer SSMs? And who's to say it can't be learned from data? I'm not saying you can't do it with transformers. But what's the basis of the belief that it can be done with a single transformer model, and one trained on language specifically? More specifically, the papers I've read so far that investigate the reasoning capabilities of neural network models (not just LLMs) seem to indicate that they're capable of emergent reasoning about the rules governing their input data. For example, being able to reverse-engineer equations (and not just approximations of them) from input/output pairs. Extending these studies would indicate that large language models are able to emergently learn the rules governing language, not necessarily much beyond that. It makes me think of two anecdotes: 1. How many times have you heard someone say, "I'm a visual learner"? They've figured out for themselves that language isn't necessarily the best way for them to learn concepts to inform their reasoning. Indeed there are many concepts for which language is entirely inefficient, if not insufficient, to convey. The world's shortest…

> and they for some reason give credit to Trump? Well, this one is really simple - nothing of note will happen in the US in the next four years without giving Trump credit for it, because if you don't he'll turn the full power of the state against you. And with no checks on his power, there's nothing to stop him. So yes, this has nothing to do with Trump, but if you don't want to get arrested and harassed, you better give him credit for it. Same playbook Elena Ceausescu used, except she did it just for scientific papers, Trump will do it for everything. https://paperpile.com/blog/elena-ceausescu-scientist-fraud/

so... what does it do? i tried one of the example search prompts it gave me "let's discover academic papers" because i figured those prompts would be chosen to display whatever makes this search engine interesting. and i just got a bunch of useless SEO chum links like this: https://paperpile.com/g/academic-search-engines/ exactly like i would expect from any search engine for such a vague query. there's a "quick summary" button at the top, but it doesn't do anything. why would i use this instead of google?

> Atom's were after all a relatively recent discovery in 1827 Atoms were controversial well past that. Their existence was not definitively settled until Einstein's work on Brownian motion in the early 20th century (which, incidentally, is what he won the Nobel Prize for, not relativity — Update: turns out I got that wrong. See child comment.). The controversy around the atomic theory was so intense it drove Ludwig Boltzmann to suicide [1]. [1] https://paperpile.com/blog/ludwig-boltzmann/

There seems to be a common theme to those. When Ceausescu visited NY he and his stupid wife (huge scientific fraud story on its own, including lot of reputable western universities going along with it) were sure Macy was just a show stocked specifically for them. I seem to remember him reacting by ordering to open a store just for show to western dignitaries/press. https://www.nytimes.com/1970/10/22/archives/ceausescu-gets-90minute-ma… https://paperpile.com/blog/elena-ceausescu-scientist-fraud/ Similar story with Yeltsin visit to a small local grocery mart in Texas in 1989.

The original paper is shown here: https://paperpile.com/blog/shortest-papers/ , whose counterexample was computed on a CDC 6600 mainframe in 1966. The source for this page can be found at https://github.com/CarlKCarlK/shortestpaper .

We have a bibliography - it is not yet organized very well but we are working on that: https://paperpile.com/shared/UhfbVO

>Reframing the question at hand around this metaphor: What would an effective vaccine look like for these thought viruses? I'm not at all sure, but I can't imagine any kind of partisan response that would work, since these viruses infect left and right alike, and many people will bend over backwards to argue otherwise. Until we can face that fact honestly, I don't see how we could even begin to have a productive conversation about a solution. Actually, there are effective ways to identify the credibility of information. From the well known CRAAP.[0] test to "lateral reading"[1] and a host of related [2][3][4][5] methods to clarify the credibility of online (or offline, for that matter) material. There are even curricula[6] that addresses these issues. And no, none of these methods are partisan. Rather, they give the reader tools to help them determine the validity and credibility of information. That many folks don't do so is definitely a problem. One of the less involved methods is "lateral reading" as described in [1]. I heartily recommend it, as well as other methods. [0] https://researchguides.ben.edu/source-evaluation [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/18/opinion/fake-news-media-attention.h… [2] https://www.library.georgetown.edu/tutorials/research-guides/evaluatin… [3] https://paperpile.com/g/find-credible-sources/ [4] https://libanswers.tcl.edu/faq/6286 [5] https://www.virtualsalt.com/evalu8it.htm [6]…