I've got an S8 that I like and I too have been avoiding Bixby. I know from a friend who had one that if you sign up then it wants to be used and it's terrible.
There is nothing more demoralizing in a tech company being given a crappy mid-range computer.
And and/or one inappaopriate to the task.
OP never mentioned, is he getting a portable desktop for someone who occasionally needs t oshift the computer, a genuine desktop wth no cables or a computer for someone who is actually moving around a lot.
If the latter don't forget the weight. The extra 500-1k which is a small fraction of the overall employee cost will make the difference between day to day misery and getting on with work.
Put the money in and buy your brilliant employee a high-end laptop. Something that shows that you value your employees, and something that shows off how well you treat your employees.
Absolutely.
What system is up to you -- a ThinkPad, a Google Pixelbook, a MacBook Pro, or a kitted out Surface Pro -- depending on your needs.
I'd go for thinkpad or dell business lines, or a mac if you need mac. They are generally very well built and last a long time. I don't think pixelbooks are well tested yet for long term reliability.
Yes, that's a fine decision depending on what the employee is actually doing. Quite a lof of companies survive on google docs now and that's much, much worse.
Funny thing is, it'll cost you about what a mac does.
Last time I checked, macs really were rather overpriced. A top end lenovo of better specs than the equivalent MBP (except the rather usless discrete GPU the MPBs have) loaded up with the long warranty and fast turnaroud servicing was still a grand cheaper.
Yes it is. Designing what you suggested is literally something every electrical engineer needs to do as part of their degree, often it's a simple second year course before you get into the complicated nature of switching characteristics (such as class-D amplifiers) that are reserved for advanced parts of the degree.
You're confusing a bunch of things. It's easy to design a class A amplifier of some sort. The entire topic of the conversation is about high quality audio power amplifiers. A BJT a and a couple of resistors make a class A amp. It is not however simple or easy to design a high quality audio amplifier like that.
It's laughable that you think that because switching can be complex and reserved for the later part of a degree that it's complex to use. Many people can buy an arduino and a motor shiled of some sort and drive motors at variable speeds. You don't need to be in an EE degree to do that.
Let me reiterate since you missed it first time: to make a class D audio amp, you buy a class D audio amp chip, and stick it to a board. Wire up the output pins to your speakers. Wire the input pins to your audio source. Wire up the power supply to the power supply. Scatter passives around according to the datasheet. Done.
Maybe an Atmel chip of some sort if you want to poke at the I2C bus. Maybe not. Depends on the chip you buy.
Oh I agree. But I'm not sure you know the heritage or what the "Linear" part of Linear semiconductors actually refers to.
Completely irrelevant.
Doing a heatsink calculation is easier than solving ohms law, but then your original requirement didn't say I wasn't allowed to use heatsinks, that's moving the goalposts.
YOU said it was simple, so I'm not moving the goalposts. Now you're saying you need to do faffing with heatsinks and calculations with them and you say that's easier that shoving a COTS class D chip on a board? A 30W class D AMP will dissipate less than 2 Watts at most, little enough that you can simply sink it into the board. With a class A you're looking at sinking maybe 90W which is much less trivial.
So sure you can use a heatsink, neither of us claimed it was out of the question but do not deny that using one is harder than not doing so.
You've done it wrong.
I guess it isn't easy then! Easy means little room to make it wrong. You can shift 90W without fans but that's getting into a non trivial design. We could pick a different part of the power envelope if you prefer.
You didn't design a class-D amplifier. You bought one off the shelf. You can do the same with with any other.
Whoever said from scratch? Now you're moving the goalposts. We were talking about products not some idealised design exercise, the products in question being audio amplifiers. You don't make a product, especially a low cost one, these days by designing everything completely from scratch.
If you're going to build and sell an audio amp, chances are you'll pick a class D chip off the shelf and slap it on a board. Depending on the chip, that will give you anything form decent performance to actually really good performance and likely very much better than anything at even 5x the prrice from before really good, cheap class D chips came off the lines.
Just buy a small Coretx-M0 with an I2S bus and bitbang the PWM or sigma-delta directly and hook 5 GPIOs to 4 power MOSFETS.
No, old man, no it's not. But it's what you might do if you wanted to do it by hand rather than simply get a chip like a normal engineer.
See easy! Just because you don't know how to do something doesn't mean it isn't trivial.
Quite. You don't realise how easy it is, so you assume it's hard because you don't understand it. A lot of perfectly good electrical engineering these days is coupling together digital blocks on an I2C or SPI bus. It lacks a certain something perhaps, but the parts ar of amazing spec and it's really fast to design not to mention cheap to make.
If by 99% you mean 99% of produce units then I agree. Even in the old days garbage systems existed.
Of course and a modern low end system will knock the old ones into a cocked hat.
Cheaparse class D has nothing on even midrange amplifiers from the 80s.
Well I guess it depends how cheap is cheap and how midrange is midrange. You can get something much, much cheaper now wich will easily perform as well.
No it's really easy.
No it's really not.
Compared to a class D amplifier it is incredibly trivial by comparison.
What? No. You can buy Class D chips off the shelf. To "design2 a class D amp, you slap one on the board. You don't have to worry about PSR because it does that. You don't even have to worry about the signal level analog stuff because it's digital in. Pick one to match thee specs. The folks at Texas and Linear and a bunch of Chinese manufacturers actually know their stuff pretty well.
There's no need to do faffrey with heatsinks, low noise fans, analog signal levels, noise floors and etc. Someone has already done all that hard work and put it in a chip. You don't need to make a high power low ripple PSU because you're drawing less power and the chips do supply rejection for you.
Excluding the PSU, it's one chip and a few passives. It doesn't get much easier.
And if you really wanted to make one yourself? Just buy a small Coretx-M0 with an I2S bus and bitbang the PWM or sigma-delta directly and hook 5 GPIOs to 4 power MOSFETS. DPAK and a nice ground plane will suffice for thermals. Modern MOSFETS are fucking incredible.
You know that the electrodes in tubes get contaminated and evaporate, right? And no two tubes respond exactly the same.
No two FETs respond the same, either. The closest you get is the matched pair discretes you get on the input stages of high end measurement equipment. The good amplifiers all used a high gain configuration with negative feedback so the response is as linear as you can get.
It is possible that the nonlinearities sound good to your ears, or you have a whole lot of unintended low pass filtering built into your tube amp, plus some unintended resonances, and you kind of like the modified product.
You forgot how crappy sound systems were in the old days. Today even cheap digital systems can often outperform the best equipment in an old time studio.
But especially hi-fi systems and speakers. Those things were just not very good.
A modern cheapass class D amp outperforms probably 99% of systems if not more from that era. It's hard to build high power analog with high linearity, low crssover low distortion etc. Like really hard.
Cassette tapes? They are the worse medium for music devised by man.
Well no that's unfair. They were better than what went before. They were compact, the tape was pretty well protected, recordable and you could fit 120 minutes into a single tape. This allowed you to actually carry quite a lot of music with you. 1 or two tapes would see you through two bus journeys and whichever lessons you could listen to music in without getting caught...
At the time they were about the best choice.
Though I only bought a few albums on tape, mostly I copied them from CDs or friends to my own tapes.
Tape stretches and breaks for almost no reason.
Yeah but it wasn't that bad. Even the rather failure prone D120s would last a fair while. The somewhat thicker tape that music was sold on generally lasted better than that. I basically listened to everything on D120.
It might be true but it's clearly done in a way to wind up the companies at CES. In other words, it's a troll, and an excellent classy one. Even people here seem to have forgotten that trolling is winding up, not just shit posting.
I think that electric vehicles pose a very real threat to the jobs and the future of many rural Americans, who feel that their work depends on trucks, cars, vehicle repair, oil, oil equipment, coal, scrap yards, etc, etc.
That's just junk.
Cars have little to do with coal,
That is especially the case today, when Tesla has been publicizing the success of their SELF-DRIVING electric SEMI-trucks.
So? So has Ford. And a bunch of truck companies. Self driving vehicles are coming this is essentially inevitable and has nothing to do with vehicles being electric. All the major manufacturers are exploring the tech. So why target tesla?
They even have a standing order for HUNDREDS of these new trucks from Walmart, rural America's love/hate store/employer.
so why the anger at Tesla not Walmart?
Tesla says that in a convoy, they are more energy efficient than trains.
Smells like BS from Tesla to me.
Its a fundamental part of American culture, and it doesn't escape these people that Tesla's development poses a tangible threat to that way of life.
Rubbish. The inexorable march of technology, combined wit hcapitalism is the threat here and it's coming for good or ill. It's happening with or without Tesla, and I doubt tesla is affecting the overall timescale.
The lads on Top Gear (at the time) stated that you had vans instead of pickups because if you had a pickup, someone would nick stuff out of the bed every time you stopped at a red light.
the lads in top gear are/were a bunch of idiots.
We also have plenty of lorries where stuff mysteriously doesn't get nicked all the time.
We also have rain which makes things wet and having a van keeps it dry.
Vans are also lower in the back and so rather easier to load large and heavy items and many are sized to hold shipping palettes.
Also we have pved roads s we don't need 4WD everywhere
If a person throws a rock at another person and injures them, the rock is not sued, the person who throws the rock is sued.
That's a silly analogy because it's not analogous.
Let's say a court tells me that person A keeps throwing rocks at you and I should stop giving them rocks. I give more rocks to person A anyway and he predictably throws them at your head.
Do you have grounds to sue me? Yeah at that poinr probably you do.
Should a manufacturer of kitchen knives be immune for the use of such knives by terrorists?
If they're knowingly sell them to someone intending to cause harm with the knife then yes they are on the hook. Grindr in this case had a restraining order against them so they certainly knew.
That's an interesting question, is bittorrent an application or a virtual ISP?
Not really and no. They're not providing internet access. If you do't pay for fast bit torrent, you get slower bit torrent and that's it. Having bittorrent on your pc won't magically make access to google drive slower in order to "encourage" you to use more bittorrent instead. Bit torrent doesn't monopolise your connection leaving you at their mercy. They are not forcing small players to have a slowdown so that you use bittorrent instead of the alternatives etc.
Trains do not change lanes at high speeds. And at slow speeds it is not impressive, as what lane a train goes in is not under control of the train at all.
(well they're tracks anyway not lanes)
Quite. Which is why the self driving train will look really impressive when it changes lanes.
It's a joke, see. I thought calling them lanes (what self driving cars rive in and change) rather than tracks (what trains run on) was enough of a clue. If you turn the steering wheel*] on a train really hard and manage to change lanes, the result is an impressive crash.
If those universities wanted, they have the resources, academic talent and prestige to create journals every bit as prestigious as the current pay ones.
No they don't. Lots of people want to supplant Nature and Science, but no one has succeeded partly because of the massive chicken and egg problem. No one wants to waste their best work on a journal that might fail.
There would be no damage to careers since the journals would be as respected as the pay ones, since they have the same peer reviewers and editorial boards as the paid ones had; they are simply replacing the publisher with their own resources.
Several problem with that. Plenty of academics turn down peer review requests from lower impact or unproven journals. Not because they're snobs but because the peer review system is massively overloaded and few people have the time to review everything that crosses their desk, so you've got to filter somehow.
Secondly those journals will have trouble attracting the good papers in the first place.
They will also have trouble attracting readers (and so citations) as well, what with being lesser known in the area. That feeds back into not being able to attract the best papers.
Personally, I think it is simply easier to live with the current system and bemoan its shortcomings than to actually change it to one with more open access. You probably couldn't get a bunch universities to agree on the journal's name, let alone how to setup the administrative portion to actually publish it.
That too!
Ultimately, changing the rules to allow the original authors to make the paper available after a short time period or even from day 1 and retain copyright, may be the only realistic solution.
Lol it's funny when angry, ignorant people make wild claims.
then they get all whiny about how hard it is if they don't get paid by a publisher.
Publishers don't pay peer reviewers or the people who publish in the journals. Nice try though.
I fully expect to rationalise at this point rather than admit that your conclusions were based on an utterly false assumption. I'm not trying to change your opinion, I'm simply trying to trigger the strongest backfire effect that I can.
Publishing in prestigious journals is key to getting and maintaining a reputation.
Yep, and that feeds into how likely you are to get a grant.
However, major universities have the resources and infrastructure in place to publish their own journals, and many already do.
Any idiot with a webserver can publish a journal. Nonetheless researchers who don't try for the top journals put their careers at risk.
Don't like it? Then contact your representative and get them to change the policy of the funding bodies that they ultimately control. Don't expect the people is the very competitive career with a tenuous grasp on there livelihood to risk it for you when you haven't put in any effort at all.
Right now, the costs of publishing in paywalled journals is insignificant compared to the benefits; the question is do universities want to wrest control of their research papers from the publishers?
Academics want to continue to eat and make rent. That requires a job which requires getting funding. Which requires papers in high profile journals.
They already provide the academic resources (reviewers, editorial boards) so the most important part of ensuring quality exists;
The universities do no such thing. That's done by academics as part of their career.
what needs to happen is for universities to decide their own publications are as valuable, or more, for tenure decisions as the current pay for play ones.
Tenure? What tenure? If it's not already dead then it's certainly on life support these days. Besides, until the external sources of funding get with the program, it won't change. Let's say a university does that it's great except now any academic who follows through now has their career tied to that university and that one alone.
Basically you are casually stating that other people should damage their careers over this. Perhaps they should but they won't, because that's not how people work.
Slashdot Mirror
They just don't want to spend their own money to do so.
Yes indeed scientists could instead spend their own money on doing their job rather than being paid to do it like fucking everyone else on the planet.
They'd rather have the tab for their flights their hotels, and all their meals, plus conference attendance fees, paid for by the taxpayer.
Yes this is how it works. If you do travel for business purposes your employer pays.
So far all you've added is "herp derp gubbermint sccientists" as a reason why not.
Don't.
I've got an S8 that I like and I too have been avoiding Bixby. I know from a friend who had one that if you sign up then it wants to be used and it's terrible.
There is nothing more demoralizing in a tech company being given a crappy mid-range computer.
And and/or one inappaopriate to the task.
OP never mentioned, is he getting a portable desktop for someone who occasionally needs t oshift the computer, a genuine desktop wth no cables or a computer for someone who is actually moving around a lot.
If the latter don't forget the weight. The extra 500-1k which is a small fraction of the overall employee cost will make the difference between day to day misery and getting on with work.
Put the money in and buy your brilliant employee a high-end laptop. Something that shows that you value your employees, and something that shows off how well you treat your employees.
Absolutely.
What system is up to you -- a ThinkPad, a Google Pixelbook, a MacBook Pro, or a kitted out Surface Pro -- depending on your needs.
I'd go for thinkpad or dell business lines, or a mac if you need mac. They are generally very well built and last a long time. I don't think pixelbooks are well tested yet for long term reliability.
and you're considering using LibreOffice?
Yes, that's a fine decision depending on what the employee is actually doing. Quite a lof of companies survive on google docs now and that's much, much worse.
So you want a replacement warranty (which is why I suggested a local retail). If you want to do mail order, buy a pair.
Or go with one of the mail order busines lines that does same day warranty repair. Lenovo and Dell and I suspect many others offer that.
Funny thing is, it'll cost you about what a mac does.
Last time I checked, macs really were rather overpriced. A top end lenovo of better specs than the equivalent MBP (except the rather usless discrete GPU the MPBs have) loaded up with the long warranty and fast turnaroud servicing was still a grand cheaper.
Yes it is. Designing what you suggested is literally something every electrical engineer needs to do as part of their degree, often it's a simple second year course before you get into the complicated nature of switching characteristics (such as class-D amplifiers) that are reserved for advanced parts of the degree.
You're confusing a bunch of things. It's easy to design a class A amplifier of some sort. The entire topic of the conversation is about high quality audio power amplifiers. A BJT a and a couple of resistors make a class A amp. It is not however simple or easy to design a high quality audio amplifier like that.
It's laughable that you think that because switching can be complex and reserved for the later part of a degree that it's complex to use. Many people can buy an arduino and a motor shiled of some sort and drive motors at variable speeds. You don't need to be in an EE degree to do that.
Let me reiterate since you missed it first time: to make a class D audio amp, you buy a class D audio amp chip, and stick it to a board. Wire up the output pins to your speakers. Wire the input pins to your audio source. Wire up the power supply to the power supply. Scatter passives around according to the datasheet. Done.
Maybe an Atmel chip of some sort if you want to poke at the I2C bus. Maybe not. Depends on the chip you buy.
Oh I agree. But I'm not sure you know the heritage or what the "Linear" part of Linear semiconductors actually refers to.
Completely irrelevant.
Doing a heatsink calculation is easier than solving ohms law, but then your original requirement didn't say I wasn't allowed to use heatsinks, that's moving the goalposts.
YOU said it was simple, so I'm not moving the goalposts. Now you're saying you need to do faffing with heatsinks and calculations with them and you say that's easier that shoving a COTS class D chip on a board? A 30W class D AMP will dissipate less than 2 Watts at most, little enough that you can simply sink it into the board. With a class A you're looking at sinking maybe 90W which is much less trivial.
So sure you can use a heatsink, neither of us claimed it was out of the question but do not deny that using one is harder than not doing so.
You've done it wrong.
I guess it isn't easy then! Easy means little room to make it wrong. You can shift 90W without fans but that's getting into a non trivial design. We could pick a different part of the power envelope if you prefer.
You didn't design a class-D amplifier. You bought one off the shelf. You can do the same with with any other.
Whoever said from scratch? Now you're moving the goalposts. We were talking about products not some idealised design exercise, the products in question being audio amplifiers. You don't make a product, especially a low cost one, these days by designing everything completely from scratch.
If you're going to build and sell an audio amp, chances are you'll pick a class D chip off the shelf and slap it on a board. Depending on the chip, that will give you anything form decent performance to actually really good performance and likely very much better than anything at even 5x the prrice from before really good, cheap class D chips came off the lines.
Just buy a small Coretx-M0 with an I2S bus and bitbang the PWM or sigma-delta directly and hook 5 GPIOs to 4 power MOSFETS.
No, old man, no it's not. But it's what you might do if you wanted to do it by hand rather than simply get a chip like a normal engineer.
See easy! Just because you don't know how to do something doesn't mean it isn't trivial.
Quite. You don't realise how easy it is, so you assume it's hard because you don't understand it. A lot of perfectly good electrical engineering these days is coupling together digital blocks on an I2C or SPI bus. It lacks a certain something perhaps, but the parts ar of amazing spec and it's really fast to design not to mention cheap to make.
If by 99% you mean 99% of produce units then I agree. Even in the old days garbage systems existed.
Of course and a modern low end system will knock the old ones into a cocked hat.
Cheaparse class D has nothing on even midrange amplifiers from the 80s.
Well I guess it depends how cheap is cheap and how midrange is midrange. You can get something much, much cheaper now wich will easily perform as well.
No it's really easy.
No it's really not.
Compared to a class D amplifier it is incredibly trivial by comparison.
What? No. You can buy Class D chips off the shelf. To "design2 a class D amp, you slap one on the board. You don't have to worry about PSR because it does that. You don't even have to worry about the signal level analog stuff because it's digital in. Pick one to match thee specs. The folks at Texas and Linear and a bunch of Chinese manufacturers actually know their stuff pretty well.
There's no need to do faffrey with heatsinks, low noise fans, analog signal levels, noise floors and etc. Someone has already done all that hard work and put it in a chip. You don't need to make a high power low ripple PSU because you're drawing less power and the chips do supply rejection for you.
Excluding the PSU, it's one chip and a few passives. It doesn't get much easier.
And if you really wanted to make one yourself? Just buy a small Coretx-M0 with an I2S bus and bitbang the PWM or sigma-delta directly and hook 5 GPIOs to 4 power MOSFETS. DPAK and a nice ground plane will suffice for thermals. Modern MOSFETS are fucking incredible.
You know that the electrodes in tubes get contaminated and evaporate, right? And no two tubes respond exactly the same.
No two FETs respond the same, either. The closest you get is the matched pair discretes you get on the input stages of high end measurement equipment. The good amplifiers all used a high gain configuration with negative feedback so the response is as linear as you can get.
It is possible that the nonlinearities sound good to your ears, or you have a whole lot of unintended low pass filtering built into your tube amp, plus some unintended resonances, and you kind of like the modified product.
Yep that's basically the tube sound.
You forgot how crappy sound systems were in the old days. Today even cheap digital systems can often outperform the best equipment in an old time studio.
But especially hi-fi systems and speakers. Those things were just not very good.
A modern cheapass class D amp outperforms probably 99% of systems if not more from that era. It's hard to build high power analog with high linearity, low crssover low distortion etc. Like really hard.
Cassette tapes? They are the worse medium for music devised by man.
Well no that's unfair. They were better than what went before. They were compact, the tape was pretty well protected, recordable and you could fit 120 minutes into a single tape. This allowed you to actually carry quite a lot of music with you. 1 or two tapes would see you through two bus journeys and whichever lessons you could listen to music in without getting caught...
At the time they were about the best choice.
Though I only bought a few albums on tape, mostly I copied them from CDs or friends to my own tapes.
Tape stretches and breaks for almost no reason.
Yeah but it wasn't that bad. Even the rather failure prone D120s would last a fair while. The somewhat thicker tape that music was sold on generally lasted better than that. I basically listened to everything on D120.
How is this trolling?
It might be true but it's clearly done in a way to wind up the companies at CES. In other words, it's a troll, and an excellent classy one. Even people here seem to have forgotten that trolling is winding up, not just shit posting.
I think that electric vehicles pose a very real threat to the jobs and the future of many rural Americans, who feel that their work depends on trucks, cars, vehicle repair, oil, oil equipment, coal, scrap yards, etc, etc.
That's just junk.
Cars have little to do with coal,
That is especially the case today, when Tesla has been publicizing the success of their SELF-DRIVING electric SEMI-trucks.
So? So has Ford. And a bunch of truck companies. Self driving vehicles are coming this is essentially inevitable and has nothing to do with vehicles being electric. All the major manufacturers are exploring the tech. So why target tesla?
They even have a standing order for HUNDREDS of these new trucks from Walmart, rural America's love/hate store/employer.
so why the anger at Tesla not Walmart?
Tesla says that in a convoy, they are more energy efficient than trains.
Smells like BS from Tesla to me.
Its a fundamental part of American culture, and it doesn't escape these people that Tesla's development poses a tangible threat to that way of life.
Rubbish. The inexorable march of technology, combined wit hcapitalism is the threat here and it's coming for good or ill. It's happening with or without Tesla, and I doubt tesla is affecting the overall timescale.
The lads on Top Gear (at the time) stated that you had vans instead of pickups because if you had a pickup, someone would nick stuff out of the bed every time you stopped at a red light.
the lads in top gear are/were a bunch of idiots.
We also have plenty of lorries where stuff mysteriously doesn't get nicked all the time.
We also have rain which makes things wet and having a van keeps it dry.
Vans are also lower in the back and so rather easier to load large and heavy items and many are sized to hold shipping palettes.
Also we have pved roads s we don't need 4WD everywhere
If a person throws a rock at another person and injures them, the rock is not sued, the person who throws the rock is sued.
That's a silly analogy because it's not analogous.
Let's say a court tells me that person A keeps throwing rocks at you and I should stop giving them rocks. I give more rocks to person A anyway and he predictably throws them at your head.
Do you have grounds to sue me? Yeah at that poinr probably you do.
Should a manufacturer of kitchen knives be immune for the use of such knives by terrorists?
If they're knowingly sell them to someone intending to cause harm with the knife then yes they are on the hook. Grindr in this case had a restraining order against them so they certainly knew.
These details were in the summary.
This is slashdot. We don't read the summary. We read (at most) the first three words of the headline then get angry about it.
That's an interesting question, is bittorrent an application or a virtual ISP?
Not really and no. They're not providing internet access. If you do't pay for fast bit torrent, you get slower bit torrent and that's it. Having bittorrent on your pc won't magically make access to google drive slower in order to "encourage" you to use more bittorrent instead. Bit torrent doesn't monopolise your connection leaving you at their mercy. They are not forcing small players to have a slowdown so that you use bittorrent instead of the alternatives etc.
Trains do not change lanes at high speeds. And at slow speeds it is not impressive, as what lane a train goes in is not under control of the train at all.
(well they're tracks anyway not lanes)
Quite. Which is why the self driving train will look really impressive when it changes lanes.
It's a joke, see. I thought calling them lanes (what self driving cars rive in and change) rather than tracks (what trains run on) was enough of a clue. If you turn the steering wheel*] on a train really hard and manage to change lanes, the result is an impressive crash.
[*] you know a sterring wheel lik this one https://i.ytimg.com/vi/eSMYwOw...
I wonder how many people will think I'm being serious about that too.
Hay man, how's it going? You disappeared for a while there, I was getting worried.
I think he may have been nursing an awesome hangover.
Is it me or do these threads get WAAYYY more whiny AC replies than just about any other thread?
If those universities wanted, they have the resources, academic talent and prestige to create journals every bit as prestigious as the current pay ones.
No they don't. Lots of people want to supplant Nature and Science, but no one has succeeded partly because of the massive chicken and egg problem. No one wants to waste their best work on a journal that might fail.
There would be no damage to careers since the journals would be as respected as the pay ones, since they have the same peer reviewers and editorial boards as the paid ones had; they are simply replacing the publisher with their own resources.
Several problem with that. Plenty of academics turn down peer review requests from lower impact or unproven journals. Not because they're snobs but because the peer review system is massively overloaded and few people have the time to review everything that crosses their desk, so you've got to filter somehow.
Secondly those journals will have trouble attracting the good papers in the first place.
They will also have trouble attracting readers (and so citations) as well, what with being lesser known in the area. That feeds back into not being able to attract the best papers.
Personally, I think it is simply easier to live with the current system and bemoan its shortcomings than to actually change it to one with more open access. You probably couldn't get a bunch universities to agree on the journal's name, let alone how to setup the administrative portion to actually publish it.
That too!
Ultimately, changing the rules to allow the original authors to make the paper available after a short time period or even from day 1 and retain copyright, may be the only realistic solution.
that's more or less happening,
I tried that once many years ago. It said I lived in a country where they didn't want my money. So I went and found it elsewhere for free.
Oh, well fair enough then.
Lol it's funny when angry, ignorant people make wild claims.
then they get all whiny about how hard it is if they don't get paid by a publisher.
Publishers don't pay peer reviewers or the people who publish in the journals. Nice try though.
I fully expect to rationalise at this point rather than admit that your conclusions were based on an utterly false assumption. I'm not trying to change your opinion, I'm simply trying to trigger the strongest backfire effect that I can.
Publishing in prestigious journals is key to getting and maintaining a reputation.
Yep, and that feeds into how likely you are to get a grant.
However, major universities have the resources and infrastructure in place to publish their own journals, and many already do.
Any idiot with a webserver can publish a journal. Nonetheless researchers who don't try for the top journals put their careers at risk.
Don't like it? Then contact your representative and get them to change the policy of the funding bodies that they ultimately control. Don't expect the people is the very competitive career with a tenuous grasp on there livelihood to risk it for you when you haven't put in any effort at all.
Right now, the costs of publishing in paywalled journals is insignificant compared to the benefits; the question is do universities want to wrest control of their research papers from the publishers?
Academics want to continue to eat and make rent. That requires a job which requires getting funding. Which requires papers in high profile journals.
They already provide the academic resources (reviewers, editorial boards) so the most important part of ensuring quality exists;
The universities do no such thing. That's done by academics as part of their career.
what needs to happen is for universities to decide their own publications are as valuable, or more, for tenure decisions as the current pay for play ones.
Tenure? What tenure? If it's not already dead then it's certainly on life support these days. Besides, until the external sources of funding get with the program, it won't change. Let's say a university does that it's great except now any academic who follows through now has their career tied to that university and that one alone.
Basically you are casually stating that other people should damage their careers over this. Perhaps they should but they won't, because that's not how people work.