Cite one more paper to get 0.15% more chance of being accepted!

Good enough to know if I have to read it or not. Still ends up disappointed half of the time because an abstract is meant is often a bit clickbaity.

> There's nothing wrong with relevant self promotion, especially if it's high quality material.

Who is the judge?

Do I really care of the quality, if it's a paid book that is not upfront about its price? What could it tell us about the author and the information contained inside the book?

So that's an ad.

I don't like this "subtle" style of marketing. We're talking about a $63 book and yet the first sentence is puzzling.

Text is more easily searchable, editable and accessible compared to jpeg. Jpeg images are not easily indexed by search engines, which can negatively affect their discoverability. Text can be easily copied, pasted, and edited, while with a jpeg, the text cannot be edited and is limited in terms of accessibility. Additionally, a jpeg may not display correctly on all devices, whereas text can be viewed on any device with a compatible software. These advantages of text make it a preferred format for sharing information over jpeg images.

Yeah you really radiate good vibes instead.

You think it's normal on the internet to share text by using JPEG? A lossy format for text?

Good on you to spend CPU to convert an image to text, real efficiency here.

2023? Trillions parameters neural networks?

And we get a god damn JPEG of a bulletpoint list upvoted here?

A bulletpoint list that's litterally the list of the title of the most upvoted threads of last week??

What kind of dystopia are we already in?

> What is the world record for crossing the English Channel entirely on foot

https://twitter.com/goodside/status/1609972546954317824/photo/1

not a fair question for google nor chatgpt, is it

Sometime I wish we could just write papers directly in a summarized manner (and not automatically)

I'm starting my bullet-point conference soon..