Dumb Questions Thread

[Joey D]

What is the most cost effective way to access journals if you aren't a student/don't work for a university?

The best thing to do is e-mail one of the authors of the paper you're interested in. They worked incredibly hard on their paper and most of the time will be willing to share it with you. They don't see money from the publications so they're probably not going to tell you that you need to buy the journal.

Plenty of libraries carry various journals. You might need to poke around to find the one you're looking for, but chance are libraries in major cities should have them.

CORE is another good place to look: https://core.ac.uk/

 

[HenrySwanson]

I'm not sure how feasible that is as I want to do a semi-literature review.

My friend's OpenAthens login gets me access to BMJ Best Practice and Uptodate....but I don't think it unlocks any articles that aren't already free to view that I've found through PubMed.

 

[Imari]

I'm not sure how feasible that is as I want to do a semi-literature review.

My friend's OpenAthens login gets me access to BMJ Best Practice and Uptodate....but I don't think it unlocks any articles that aren't already free to view that I've found through PubMed.

arXiv is an option, it has a lot of stuff but often not the really big papers.

As far as I know Alexandra Elbakyan's little website is still going. If you're going to use the stuff for any sort of commercial purpose that's probably not a good idea, but if it's just for personal research it's very convenient.

Depending on what your subject matter area is sometimes you can find forums or the like which will have archives of material and/or people with access who can help.

Googling by DOI or the exact title + "pdf" sometimes gets you results, but you'd probably have to do it with something other than actual Google these days. And have all your adblockers and stuff on for whatever website you get sent to.

As others have said, email the author is really the only surefire way. You can build a list of papers you want from abstracts and references, and you'll often find that the same half dozen or so people have probably done 80% of the research you're interested in.

 

[Liquid]

Guess which country sits at the top of UK exports, with almost double that of the next place? If you went for the US at circa $72 billion per year you would be correct.

[...]

the delta to second place (Germany) has grown from circa $10B prior to Brexit to over $30B last year, making the UK far more reliant on exports to the US than pre-Brexit.

I understand what is trying to be said here and I understand it's a pretty funny motorsports reference but once again, I do genuinely trip up on numbers.

Does it mean that the gap between UK's number one export destination (USA) and number two (Germany) has grown by 20 billion? That is to say, Germany was only 10 billion behind the USA but is now 30 billion behind?

 

[Scaff]

I understand what is trying to be said here and I understand it's a pretty funny motorsports reference but once again, I do genuinely trip up on numbers.

Does it mean that the gap between UK's number one export destination (USA) and number two (Germany) has grown by 20 billion? That is to say, Germany was only 10 billion behind the USA but is now 30 billion behind?

Yep, it's a rather large increase

 

[Liquid]

Are Americans generally aware of how poorly their chocolate is perceived outside of North America?

Obviously many US firms are well-established as global leaders, Mars alone is significant enough, and what they make in other markets and for other markets is different but if you generally talk about "American chocolate" in Europe, many people who know it or have tried it will wretch in repulsion.

 

[Meythia]

many people who know it or have tried it will wretch in repulsion.

But doesnt that apply to many things that should have a taste + that is more complicated than "sweet"?

 

[TheCracker]

Are Americans generally aware of how poor their chocolate is perceived outside of North America?

Obviously many US firms are well-established as global leaders, Mars alone is significant enough, and what they make in other markets and for other markets is different but if you generally talk about "American chocolate" in Europe, many people who know it or have tried it will wretch in repulsion.

US chocolate is made with slightly turned milk, hence anyone from outside of the US thinks its tastes like sick, or worse.

If you've grown up with it, it won't have that nasty aftertaste because your just used to chocolate tasting that way.

 

[Liquid]

US chocolate is made with slightly turned milk, hence anyone from outside of the US thinks its tastes like sick, or worse.

If you've grown up with it, it won't have that nasty aftertaste because your just used to chocolate tasting that way.

I know the reason why, it has butric acid in it, I was just wondering if this perception was known in the US itself.

 

[UKMikey]

Butyric acid?

I did ask this on a US forum once and the answer was "... well we won more wars than the Belgians and Swiss so shut tf up ya goddam limey".

I guess Nestlé technically counts as Swiss chocolate so it probably negates the Lindt advantage somewhat.

 

[Liquid]

butric acid

Butyric acid?

Thank you.

 

[Pupik]

Are Americans generally aware of how poor their chocolate is perceived outside of North America?

Obviously many US firms are well-established as global leaders, Mars alone is significant enough, and what they make in other markets and for other markets is different but if you generally talk about "American chocolate" in Europe, many people who know it or have tried it will wretch in repulsion.

Yes, but with a dash of no. What and which chocolate is being compared?

If just the commercially-available $1-2 candy bars, then they're going to be substandard. I'm guessing that's probably all of the additives and preservatives to keep it shelf stable for longer periods of time, and the stretching of ingredients with fillers to keep the costs down. I wonder if it's because of our litigious society, or even a modern expectation that all packaged, non-fresh food (i.e. produce) has a shelf life of usually 12 months from production.

I've tasted many different imported "cheap snack" chocolates and they're honestly not much better or worse. One example I'll use are Kit-Kats...we love them in our household. I've brought home examples from Canada, Trinidad, and some imported from Japan. While there's a very slight difference in the consistency of the milk chocolate, I honestly can't tell a huge difference between the examples. I can notice a mellower, less-acidic hint in the chocolate of Canadian Kit-Kats, but I probably wouldn't notice the difference in a blind taste test.

It took until I was thirty to appreciate dark chocolates (though >90% cacao is just chalk) so I wouldn't say my tastes are entirely refined. They're best enjoyed in slow doses, which seemed to be the mistake I'd made for years. But I also think: (A) we've allowed more additives to most foods over the years which has some variations in quality (B) people are nostalgic and think all food should taste like the first magical time in which they fell in love with that particular delicacy.

I do prefer most of my cheap chocolates chilled, seems to taste better, in my (and my wife's) opinion. I'll occasionally splurge on the finer stuff but like most technical arts, the differences are rarely noticeable after a price point over 2-4x the least-expensive option, with gains-to-price being on the asymptotic side of the logarithmic curve.

¯\-(ツ)-/¯ Could be just me.