Real Talk
Real Talk
Real Talk
That’s why you always prefix your todos with “TODO”
To-do: add TODO
Only in Kansas
todo, todo, todo todo todo, todo todooooo
tododododooo
Best case scenario:
Worst case scenario:
The peer reviewer is Gabor.
Best Case Scenario:
Gabor agrees the paper was crap
If your reviewer suggests you cite another paper, it's one of their papers and they just doxed themselves, 100% of the time.
Awesome, it was published but retracted
That's why you change the color of any temporary text so that you can really see if there's any left
Considering how widespread of a situation it is, I am surprised I haven’t found yet a good LaTeX package that handles temporary sections
You don't need a package at all. I just define a new command \xxx{stuff} that changes the colour to red. It's a one-liner. Copy and paste that into any new document. Changing the colour without a custom command is equally trivial, but this allows you to search for "xxx" to find anything you might've missed.
why not add notes as marginalia?
###I throw some hashes in front
I throw ?? (that is also the default error code for LaTeX, so the last sweep of the pdf is always a search for ??)
OOP really overestimating how many people read a paper. It's about publishing as many papers as possible, not proofreading.
Vibes science?
Once, I got a reviewer stating “in the code, I doubt line 43 was supposed to be submitted”
Line 43: FUUUCK, DOES NOT WORK
I'm amazed a reviewer read the code.
Me too! That wasn’t even the only time I got comments on my code. Since then, I make a point of doing at least a cursory check on codes when I review as well
Did it work though?
Yes. Yes, everything works a-okay. Somehow I fixed the code but never removed the obnoxious, full cap comment…