That is a really bad analogy. Reviewers are not complaining about the author, they are pointing out things that need to be corrected in a piece of writing. It is not supposed to be taken personally, as an attack, but impersonally, as a part of a collaborative effort to put forth the best possible description of the project and its implications.

Pointing out someone did not format a table perfectly, or left out a footnote should not embarrass anyone, reviewer or author. Nor should highlighting a missing citation, that a sentence of paragraph is confusing, a word is misspelled, or the word count for an abstract exceeds the journals official limit. Which is to say the vast majority of edits are innocuous.

Some may be more substantive. I frequently have to point out problems with the statistics in papers I review. Things that require they redo them, and then possibly having to rewrite a portion of the results and discussion sections to reflect the corrections. Still, that kind of comment shows someone other than the author thought long and hard about how to ensure the interpretation is as accurate as possible. It itâ(TM)s a good thing.

In my experience, if the comments are extensive enough that the authors should feel embarrassed for their work, (e.g. design cannot actually address the question that it was intended to answer) the paper is probably going to be rejected by the journal anyway. In which case the comments will not be made public, as this policy (as far as I can tell) will only apply to papers that are ultimately accepted for publication. And if a paper does take a ton of effort to reach a publishable state, then that is the consequence of not doing a better job before submission.

my first publication took 3 or 4 rounds of edits, and that was not fun. If the reviewer comments had been public I would not be embarrassed, I was an MS student. I had little idea what I was doing, and it showed in my work. That is the price of doing something difficult for the first time.

I review for a couple of different journals in my field (Not Nature, which outside of my field).

I have been offered a check box for over 2 years about my willingness to have my comments follow the paper should the authors decide to switch to a different journal at the publisher with different policies around publishing reviewer comments (our journals don't publish comments currently), and I have always said "Yes".

First off, even if my comments go with a paper, my name does not. So it's not like I need to worry about blow back from authors or their corporate sponsors.

Second off, if I've done my job right, there should not be anything in there I would be embarrassed to have linked back to me, even if my name were some how put to my comments. Anyone treating anonymous manuscript comments like 4chan should not be reviewing manuscripts in the first place.

I honestly don't see any reason for the conflict of interest you propose should Nature supply the reviewers. It is not like Nature has on-staff reviewers. They, like every other journal of which I am aware (and is not a pay to play journal), uses volunteer reviewers from amongst their subscriber base, which means they are ALREADY supplying the reviewers.

The objective for things like this, IMO, is to improve the transparency of the peer review process. If I find issues with a published paper, and see that the 2 reviewers did only a half assed "all looks good to me" type of review, then I know why the final product isn't great. However, if I find an issue, and can see that the reviewers worked with the authors to address the topic, I have more confidence in the quality of the paper.

It isn't really about the money, it is about the principle. "We pay nothing, ever"

Also, I recall working for a similarly sized company that almost ended up in court over tonnage fees (basically taxes on feed ingredients) in half a dozen different US states. There had been a couple of reorganizations and responsibilities for receiving the invoices and paying the fees bounced around to a couple of different people. The person they ended with saw dealing with those products as "not my job" becuase her job title had the name of a different business unit (Pharma) from the business unit incurring the fees (Animal nutrition).

fast forward 2+ years, and I'm looking into bringing some new products into those states, and I get told by the state level folks about these threatening letters they had sent to our offices. I asked who they went to, and when I went and talked to the recipient, she handed me a folder with threatening letters from half a dozen states, with increasingly emphatic language and threats. I asked why she hand't done anything with them, or about them, and she said something to the effect of "not my job". I pointed out that the threats would affect her business because her business unit would be caught up in the seizures of inventory, and she just blinked at me. "but that's your business unit" she said. To which I responded "the name on the building is the one that matters to the lawyers. They will sue the entire company, not just one business unit, and since you are the recipient for these, your job will the the first to go for incompetence". She just shook her head, and told me to deal with it if I felt it was important (which a member of my team did from that point forward).

Never underestimate the incompetence or short-sightedness of a moron manning a desk.

No one is asking them for this. No one is asking for any of their AI features. I do not care that these tools suck, because I donâ(TM)t want or need them.

First, there is a key part of the Heinlein quote in "contrary to public interest". There is very much a public interest in food being affordable, particularly when that affordability is targeted at those who most need it. That is separate from the question of propping up farm land value. A proposition I have not espoused or supported.

To whit, US farm land IS overpriced. But that is largely because of the fuel ethanol mandate and related subsidies. I remember when the Bush administration pushed through the ethanol mandate and subsidies and land prices doubled within a few years, and then doubled again a few years after that. This is what drives up land prices. Converting corn into fuel. Not giving families more to buy more carrots and cabbage. And to be clear, I agree that these should absolutely be revoked. However, this is different from SNAP. Where fuel ethanol related subsidies exist to create a market where one would not otherwise exist, SNAP does no such thing. There already is a market for human food, and it instead addresses the affordability question on one side, while also supporting farmers. Where fuel ethanol is largely one sided ($ for the largest farms possible, with little value to the rest of the nation) SNAP is more of a compromise ($ for produce farmers, and Food for those that need it.).

Starting a discussion of food affordability by trotting out Averages completely misses the point when it comes to a means tested benefit such as SNAP. The Average American is legally ineligible for SNAP benefits. It is intended for only those with less than a certain amount of income. In NJ, where I live, that is a gross monthly income of $4.8k for a family of 4. That may seem like a lot, but the median household income in my town is $12k/month and the average cost of a 2 bedroom apartment is over $2.6k or over half of the income eligibility threshold. And SNAP eligibility is determined by the state, so in most states the threshold for eligibility will be lower than a wealthy state with a high cost of living like NJ.

As for "we need a major decline of employment in the sector" it is sentiments like that which toss large tracts of the US into the Republican arms. Farmers don't want to be sacrificed for the sake of progress or anything else like that, and farmers vote. Ignoring that reality while proposing cutting programs that literally feed hungry kids and families is as myopic as farmers voting to support trumps attack on government programs. Gutting SNAP will not impact fuel ethanol related pricing, and as such will not impact midwestern land prices. What it will do is cause a lot of people to go hungry. Mostly children and pregnant/nursing moms. A better policy would be to end ethanol subsidies, and then incentivize conversion of export focused farms into producing for domestic consumption. Which would require converting at least some of the commodity crop fields (corn, soy, etc.) to produce.

This is overly simplistic

The government and citizens both have a vested interest in keeping food affordable. Ag subsidies began as a means to keep farmers from having their farms repossessed, AND to feed those who couldn't afford enough to eat. Both still desirable goals. There is certainly unnecessary subsidies in the US which pervert the market. As a nutritionists, I believe there should be fewer dollars for commodity crops like corn, soy and sugar, and more for things like vegetables. There should also be caps on how much subsidy an operation can receive to limit dollars flowing to the biggest corporate farms (though I can see lots of ways to game that through shell companies).

Raising farm incomes is not, per se, a problem. Lots of small family farms need those subsidies to stay afloat, even with one or two of the family members having jobs off of the farm to provide supplemental income. The issue is that our industry has figured out how to funnel most of the value of those subsidies away from their recipients, and up to the large companies that they sell their products to. Cargill, Smithfield, etc. Cutting off the flow to smaller farmers will just accelerate the consolidation of the industry into larger farms with less interest in the communities those farm lands are part of. making the big ag lobby even more powerful than it is today.

If Doge has taught us anything, is that the superficially attractive idea of just taking a hatchet to those programs that are having unintended consequences does not work. It requires a nuanced assessment of how these programs are being abused, and finding solutions to those abuses, while preserving the things these programs do to help every day folks.

As to your screed about the "ignorant myths" of small farmers, you need to go outside and touch grass. They do very much exist, as I've worked on small farms in 3 states. Even large ag conglomerates like Tyson or Smithfield don't actually own a lot of the crop land or animals that they control. They use supply agreements to lock up small farmers, and include them in the count of animals they control, but those small farms still exist at the mercy of the market and those integrators they are forced to serve like feudal serfs. When market prices drop, these integrators find ways to push a lot of the losses onto those contract growers. and when prices are good, they share only a fraction of the benefit down the line. Rules to limit the negotiating power of large integrators or large commodity grain buyers could be used to limit how much of the subsidy money they can pick from small farms pockets, keeping those farms owned by families in the communities.

I work in agriculture. All of my customers rely HEAVILY on government programs, yet they are all happy Trump is taking a hatchet to the government. it's assinine.

We rely on NOAA for weather forecasts to plan planting and harvesting, avoiding getting killed by hurricanes and tornadoes. We rely on FEMA when those severe weather events do come through and destroy our fields, barns, homes, and towns. We rely on the USDA to collect SO MUCH FUCKING DATA on imports, exports, crop progress, drought conditions, commodity pricing, etc. we also rely on the AMS and ARS groups at USDA to help us build markets for our products, and to keep our science competitive. We rely on the Army Corp of Engineers to keep our waterways navigable so that our products can get to the rest of the world economically (the low cost of river transport is criminally under appreciated). The DOT keeps the trains rolling for those crops that cannot be shipped via waterways. SNAP is a welfare program at first glance, but it is an agricultural subsidy first and foremost. The programs origins were in keeping US crop prices high by buying surplus goods at above market prices to receive the over-supply and distributing them to those who couldn't afford them. The list just goes on, and on, and on, and on.

Part of me legit wants to leave my industry becuase of how stupid we look for supporting Trump so strongly. He's destroying the things we use to make our livelihoods, and thanking him for it. Likes some sad co-dependent wife talking about how great her abusive husband is while he goes in the kitchen to grab yet-another-beer.

If you had read that page before, then you would Already be familiar with those lists as they are on there.

that means you are lying about that, and suggests you are also lying about your education. You are just a troll trying waste time because makeing others angry with your ignorance validates your world view. Iâ(TM)m donâ(TM)t, kindly fuck off

Google is your friend. Do the work. You can start by reading the Wikipedia article on fascism. There is a section that lists academic work to define it over the years.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F...

there are many different researchers over the years. Some modern, whom you might dismiss based on your own prejudices, but many are much older. Dating back to the decades immediately following WWII. In either case there are unifying themes to these definitional checklists. And Trump satisfies all of them.

There are a couple of different lists from post WWII that are used to define fascism. Trump checks all the boxes on both major lists. Heâ(TM)s the only uUS president ever to have done so. That you donâ(TM)t want to call it fascism does not change what it is. There has been a lot of hyperbole around calling people Nazi on the internet, but just because some folks have used those terms inappropriately in the past does not invalidate their use here.

stop spreading false equivalencies between fascism and non-fascism. you may think it makes you look cool or smart to be jaded about politics, but it just makes you look like a useful idiot apologist for fascism. the dems are run of the mill bad, as far as politics goes. Trump is once every 3 generations or so bad. he is operating on a whole different level. there is a continuum of bad, and trump is off the charts relative to all other options.

So we canâ(TM)t have money to feed students who are too insecure, but we can spend money to force AI into classrooms where it isnâ(TM)t needed and will, in all likelihood, worsen student learning by encouraging them to outsource the act of generating answers to an AI? Fuck I need to get my kids the fuck our do this stupid fucking country.

As someone who reviews regularly (and has Never been offered money), and is close with several section editors for journals in my field, I can't say I see this as a bad thing.

People who review for the obligation of it (ie most everyone currently) will still review, they will just now get paid. People who did a solid job of reviewing have no reason to do a worse job. People who do a crappy job, about 1 in 3 in my experience, will have an incentive to do a better job. People who get asked, but rarely say yes will now have a reason to say yes more often.

Right now it is very difficult to find enough reviewers in my field, so a lot of less-than-stellar reviewers get asked just to have another person look it over. However, if there is money on the line, they are more likely to try and maintain a minimum viable standard, so that they can get that money, whereas now they don't have any downside to doing a half-assed job (what, you won't send me work I have to do for free anymore? Talk about threatening me with a good time!).

As for what is the right amount of money? can't say, as it'll probably have to vary by field.

I gross around $120/hr (after bonus, but before taxes, and benefits), and I tend to take half a day to do a thorough review of the average manuscript. $250 for 4 hr of work is less than my going rate, but I'm likely to do it while also on the clock at work. So the payment is on-top of my normal salary for the same hours. I'd review far more often than I do now if I could get $250 a pop.

Check before you object, next time:

United Airlines reported $7.2 billion in operational cash flow as of the end of Q3 (YTD numbers). It's right on their website. That works out to a margin around 8-9%. And they are pursuing stock-buy backs of $1.5 billion.

Delta Airlines reported a Q3 operating income of $1.4 billion, and a YTD operating income of 4.3 billion. They too put that on their website.

American looks the worst of the big 3, with a small net loss or profit in Q3 depending on how you do the math. But they are sitting on 11.8 billion in liquidity per their Q3 financial statements.

Now, American could - maybe - make a case for needing to shave costs or increase net-income/flight by changing baggage fees, but with that much liquidity available to them, it is not urgent. They could operate for 20 years at that loss rate before they ran out of cash to operate. And it's not like baggage fees are the only way to increase revenue. Not being the least reliable of the big 3 would be a huge help. I avoid AA because literally every itinerary I book with them ends up with multi-hour delays, with many resulting in last-minute cancellations that require them to rebook me on their competitor, turning a potentially profitable ticket into a complete loss.

However, even if you accept AA doing it for business reasons, United and Delta don't need to, but will likely follow suit as soon as possible. And just hand over that cash to shareholders in the form of stock by-backs and dividends.

No matter how much you fellate those in the owner class, they will not help you become one of them.

Have you looked at Florida? Opposite politics, same problem, similar solutions being discussed.

governments (normally) need to look out for their citizens safety. Cannot pay those property taxes if you die in a forest fire out a sink hole swallows your family home with you in it. So both are looking for ways to strong arm insurance companies into covering high-risk properties.

The only other alternatives are something like the federal flood insurance policy for coastal states (which does not actually operate as insurance, and forced tax payers to pick up the bill), to let those communities die by catastrophe, or legislate those areas to be uninhabitable (as was done in post Katrina New Orleans). That last one may be the a decision considering how little we are doing about climate change, but it is also the one with the worst political products for reelection.