> Upgraded FFP3 face mask ‘cut hospital Covid infections by 100 per cent’
> Wearing an upgraded facemask from the standard "surgical" design reduced hospital Covid infections by 100 per cent, a study has found.
> A study by the University of Cambridge found that the masks provided up to 100 per cent protection.
...and the paper itself:
> After the change in RPE, cases attributed to ward-based exposure fell significantly, with FFP3 respirators providing 31-100% protection (and most likely 100%) against infection from patients with COVID-19.
...hmmmm. 31% to 100%. Not quite "100%", is it?
And guess what else?
> This is a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary.
WHAT A LOAD OF WANK.
Ieri e oggi sono usciti due articoli in preprint simili tra loro e molto interessanti.
Il primo, uscito ieri, è stato fatto dalla Public Health England su 23.000 operatori sanitari che hanno ricevuto entrambe le dosi del vaccino di BioNTech/Pfizer. Gli operatori sono stati sottoposti ogni 2 settimane a test PCR per rilevare anche le infezioni asintomatiche. A 3 settimane dalla prima dose si è notata una diminuzione del 70% nelle infezioni sia sintomatiche che asintomatiche, mentre 7 giorni dopo la seconda dose il calo era dell'85%.
Il secondo articolo, uscito oggi, è stato fatto dalla Cambridge University sempre su operatori sanitari. In questo caso si è studiato l'effetto di una singola dose del vaccino di BioNTech/Pfizer. A 12 giorni dalla somministrazione hanno cominciato a sottoporre gli operatori a test PCR in modo regolare. Si è vista una riduzione del 75% nelle infezioni asintomatiche.
There’s this preprint where authors hypothesise about other kinds of SSRIs on COVID
As far as I know, both mRna vaccines that you can get here are about 90% effective against the Indian variant. I had my first shot two weeks ago, so at least against some other variants I'm already 60% resistant, I'd assume an about 50% or so probability that I don't catch it or if I do then my illness will be much weaker and I'll spread the virus less.
I can cite papers for all of these claims, I think.
So yes, I assume that I'm to some extend protected from some variants. I haven't looked into the Vietnamese one yet, and probably there's no research on it to that extend yet, but I do think that vaccination (which is safe as far as we can tell) plus the advancements we are making in other medication will probably protect us to some degree. I'm not sure we should be opening up as quickly as we are, but I do think that the vaccine has a good probability of protecting me at least to some degree.
I seriously sympathise - if you haven't already worth looking at upgrading your mask to FFP3 - small study here shows excellent protection benefits.
But obv not a lot you can do about the risk of your wife and stepson bringing the virus home :(
There have been a number of studies on N95s. One good one is this: https://www.authorea.com/users/421653/articles/527590-ffp3-respirators-protect-healthcare-workers-against-infection-with-sars-cov-2?commit=e567e67501cd6ee0dd1a6e8e4acdf2c4fd70e0ec
This is with FFP3s, which are the euro equivalent of an N99, one step above an N95, but this study shows 100% protection for hospital workers.
Another datapoint is just the sheer number of hospital workers in covid wards that didn't get covid from Feb-Dec 2020. Most of these workers were wearing N95s, and were being exposed to covid every day for months.
Problem is the WHO then national politicians sold the virus as spread by fomites and large droplets. That it can fill a packed room like smoke, is something that has taken 20 months to get close to be accepted widely.
UK's series of mis-steps detailed here - https://www.authorea.com/users/316109/articles/545687-how-covid-19-spreads-narratives-counter-narratives-and-social-dramas basically center around not treating the diseases as airborne and adjusting non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) accordingly. If you're American you won't know all the playersin that timeline. UK deaths per capita are similar to those in the USA.
That’s borderline misinformation. Masks do work. The question, however, is what kinds of masks work in what way and for what purpose. Cloth masks will, generally speaking, protect others from yourself but not yourself from others given Coronavirus is mostly transmitted through the air. Medical grade masks like N95/N99, however, are a different story. Here, too, however the story is not as simple as the main criterion is fit, ie are you breathing through the air holes on the side or through the mask (the former will not protect you (much), the latter will). Those masks do protect both you as well as the other person. This is true for N95/KN95/FFP2 to some extent, whereas a recent study in the UK clearly demonstrated the effectiveness of FFP3 (so N99) masks. So yes, masks do work.
More generally, it is hard to measure the effectiveness of masks which lead some people to the conclusion that they don’t work. That is not true. Often mask mandates are being introduced with other measures and as such it is hard to identify the efficacy of masks once cases go down because you can’t say whether it’s people not going out, wearing masks, most things being closed down, most people interacting outside, etc. Add to that, that people can still get infected while mask mandates are in place; think college students that meet in a dorm room and don’t wear masks although they should. In addition, “masks” is a very unclear term as effectiveness differs between different types and, importantly, fit. But that does not mean that masks are not working (you think they wear these in hospitals for fun?).
Disregard, this is just a sh*tty qanon-like "news" source, like OAN and such.
Even though I like this subreddit, we do have a bunch of retarted trumpists contaminating the place with their deleterious, worthless sh*t, like this one.
EDIT: another commenter linked to the study: https://www.authorea.com/doi/full/10.22541/au.162136772.22862058/v1
I don't know the credibility of authorea or the study though
Cambridge has similar findings, https://www.authorea.com/users/332778/articles/509881-single-dose-bnt162b2-vaccine-protects-against-asymptomatic-sars-cov-2-infection?access_token=-hDTQsMUXcCPSpdZV_Lmpg
A study in Israel published in the NEJM also had similar findings, https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2101765
But if you want to be ignorant and misinformed then don’t let me stop you.
New data from the UK looks more like the trials suggested, though:
Certainly the best course of action is to assume limited protection until after the second dose, but as always, the real world is just messier than trials.
● A Cambridge University study has shown one dose of the Pfizer vaccine cuts risk of Covid transmission by 75%.
● Over 500,000 doses have been given in UK in latest 24 hour period.
● The 7 day average of deaths in the UK is down by 31.3%.
We're getting there, lads, slowly but surely.
Let's not fuck this up!
Plus Carroll literally described what the elements of Jabberwocky mean & look like - TedEd didn't do their research very well.
Hey captainpotty- Authorea currently has a very "light" review system, which means that you can simply comment on specific sections of a paper. We built this commenting/annotation system mostly for authors so that they could discuss with their coauthors (privately or publicly). One day, however, we noticed that an Authorea user who had just finished the final draft of a climate science paper, before sending it to a journal, posted the link to it on Twitter, saying: "Now open for comments". He and his coauthors collected 60+ public comments (plus many other private ones) from the public (signed in authors as well as non-signed in anonymous). That was an example of open pre-publication peer review, or: you let anyone review your work before it is even submitted to a journal. The authors told us that they the final manuscript they ended up submitting was a lot stronger because it had already been reviewed! (and by more than 2-3 reviewers)
I understand that a major concern for this sort of system would be assuring the highest quality of the review mechanism. It does sound scary to open up the scholarly reviewing mechanism - which is by and large the filter that separates science from non-science. The truth is: the peer review mechanism is far from perfect. It has many many many problems today. What we propose (not today, but in the near future) is a "karma" system" (similar to reddit) whereby your contribution and reputation as an open peer-reviewer can be voted upon. I understand that such a system could be gamed. It is not without problems, but if it existed in addition to the current (problematic) closed peer review system, I think it would overall be a more rigorous and better reviewing system.
Recently too, another article on the governments handling of it all from the start - https://www.authorea.com/users/316109/articles/545687-how-covid-19-spreads-narratives-counter-narratives-and-social-dramas - by doctors.
I think they were properly fit-tested though -- this is the study and they thank the fit-testing team at the end.
FFP3 are designed to block basically everything when they're sealed properly, but the question mark, as I understand it, is over what happens if you give one to just a regular person who can't check the seal because you need specialist equipment. I would guess they'd still do better than surgical or cloth masks but nobody seems to have tried to find out by how much.
There are no full trials showing this definitively either way. However, all available data seems to suggest the answer is no, it cannot spread from vaccinated patients. Part of the reason for this is because asymptomatic Covid patients (as one who was infected but vaccinated would be) do not spread the virus as easily as presymptomatic or fully symptomatic patients do. Here is one report from Israel which suggests the Pfizer vaccine blocks most viral transmission cases: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-11/pfizer-biontech-covid-vaccine-blocks-most-spread-in-israel-study
A second source to read: https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/vaccines-prevent-asymptomatic-infection-key-ending-pandemic-rcna444
A pending study from the second article: https://www.authorea.com/users/332778/articles/509881-single-dose-bnt162b2-vaccine-protects-against-asymptomatic-sars-cov-2-infection?access_token=-hDTQsMUXcCPSpdZV_Lmpg
Research out of the UK that is hot off the press this AM: https://www.authorea.com/users/332778/articles/509881-single-dose-bnt162b2-vaccine-protects-against-asymptomatic-sars-cov-2-infection
There was more research out of Israel as well. I only had this one handy
Thanks for taking the time to talk about this important issue.
I was wondering if you have seen this reanalysis of your paper that suggests p-hacking may not be as widespread as your analysis would indicate. Of course, p-hacking can still be problematic even if it's not rampant, but I was wondering if you had a response to the paper, and your thoughts on the way they did their reanalysis.
There is plenty of evidence of the contrary, as outlined in this review (one of many), and also no one has a slightest idea of the actual long term effects (I am talking 5+ years down the line, because, well, it has not been 5 years, frankly):
There are studies looking into that now, and I believe it's generally recognized that it can cause flareups of existing viral conditions like HZ and HSV. But I don't recall seeing that it was caused by interaction of the spike protein with those viral envelopes but rather interfering with Interferon Type 1 signaling in some way. Here's a preprint (non peer reviewed!) article I'm following and waiting for discussion about: https://www.authorea.com/users/455597/articles/552937-innate-immune-suppression-by-sars-cov-2-mrna-vaccinations-the-role-of-g-quadruplexes-exosomes-and-micrornas?commit=d033a57415da0ca976b27f11d81a4cd604f7fdc7
And mRNA vaccines are linked to this increased risks.
New Study Shows mRNA Vaccines Suppress The Immune System And Allow Deadly Diseases To Thrive about study Innate Immune Suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes and microRNAs
People have two types of immunity in essence: innate and evolved one. Innate immunity applies for children, whose cells are dividing fast as it doesn't require learning of immune cells the particular pathogens. Instead of this, another type of immune cells simply kill every infected cell without asking. Unfortunately what m-RNA vaccines just do is the labelling healthy cells as infected ones by stipulating production of viral protein inside of them. The fundamental problem of m-RNA vaccines is thus exposing viral proteins INSIDE of cells instead of leaving them OUTSIDE as all previous vaccine generations did.
People have two types of immunity in essence: innate and evolved one. Innate immunity applies for children, whose cells are dividing fast as it doesn't require learning of immune cells the particular pathogens. Instead of this, another type of immune cells simply kill every infected cell without asking. Unfortunately what m-RNA vaccines just do is the labelling healthy cells as infected ones by stipulating production of viral protein inside of them.
New Study Shows mRNA Vaccines Suppress The Immune System And Allow Deadly Diseases To Thrive
According to the study’s authors, mRNA vaccinations have now been shown to down regulate critical pathways related to cancer surveillance, infection control, and cellular homeostasis. In short, the experimental jabs expose the body to neurodegenerative disease, myocarditis, immune thrombocytopenia, Bell’s palsy, liver disease, impaired adaptive immunity, increased tumorigenesis, and DNA damage
And this is the problem with CDC "study" data. You will note there is a preprint among the citations for that one.
I prefer the data from this study, where a fixed cohort with regular direct exposure and testing prove there was a measurable difference in outcomes.
Crap. I'll see if I can find it for you.
Have you actually looked at his publications though? They’re really terrible. It’s like amateur level research.
https://www.authorea.com/users/414448/articles/522499-sars-cov-2-mass-vaccination-urgent-questions-on-vaccine-safety-that-demand-answers-from-international-health-agencies-regulatory-authorities-governments-and-vaccine-developers?commit=123b846113... all day baby
Here is another one where the author directly addressed people on social media who questions the protective effects of masks. Interesting how he notes the flaws in research over wearer protection and draws attention to the fact masks are most effective at protecting others from an asymptomatic wearer.
Precisely where my original point lies, it's not hard to wear a mask there is no reason not to and it pure selfishness not to for most people.
But by all means continue to follow opinions over facts because then you can pretend you are not a selfish prick at all and you are in fact far more intelligent than the world scientific minds.
Fact, you are not!
Ob diese Fragen wohl je beantwortet werden?
Expect it's punished in peer reviewed government studies. Censor all you wish. You can refute a lie. But you have to sensor truth.
You mention RMarkdown, but do you actually intend to have chunks that get processed in your actual dissertation? That seems to be very complicated.
Otherwise, look into online tools like Authorea. They are collaborative markdown docs with ability to comment, and they gave really great citation tools.
There have been a few case reports on it:
It has been an issue, or suggested issue, for some other vaccines as well.
>This is interesting, do you have a source for this?
Senczuk et al.
Where is your evidence that the vaccine is unable to prevent transmission? If this was the case we would have the same levels of virus circulating across the population, and population studies such as the ZOE Covid Study (which does asymptomatic testing) would be showing an incredible amount of positives.
There are many articles that suggest (by many qualified people) that both symptomatic and asymptomatic spread have seen a marked reduction following vaccination (see here for just one example, I'm sure you can find many more with a simple Google search).
Denying treatment or delaying treatment in favour of characteristics such as this is dangerous and sets a terrible precedent. All decisions should be made in favour of clinical priority and prognostic factors. I work in cancer care, using this same logic people with lung cancer who smoke would be delayed in favour of non-smokers which is quite frankly sickening. People are free to make choices, and they are free to make bad choices. As much as I am pro-vaccine it is ultimately the individual's decision as to whether or not they have it, as much as it may be a detriment to society unfortunately.
Eu até era para responder, mas depois abri um dos artigos linkados:
"the letters of all codon triplets are replaced by a C or a G, to extremely increase the speed of protein synthesis" (sic)
It can be 100%.
FFP3 respirators provide 100% protection to healthcare workers looking after patients infected with SARS-CoV2. https://www.authorea.com/users/421653/articles/527590-ffp3-respirators-protect-healthcare-workers-against-infection-with-sars-cov-2?commit=e567e67501cd6ee0dd1a6e8e4acdf2c4fd70e0ec
N99 works even better.
FFP3 respirators provide 100% protection to healthcare workers looking after patients infected with SARS-CoV2. https://www.authorea.com/users/421653/articles/527590-ffp3-respirators-protect-healthcare-workers-against-infection-with-sars-cov-2?commit=e567e67501cd6ee0dd1a6e8e4acdf2c4fd70e0ec
I stocked up for the coming months.
Come on. That's based on 27 total COVID-19 positive cases in the COVID-19 wards over the entire span of the entire dubious (to be charitable) study:
Rates were possibly higher in the second wave. However, it wasn't apparent from the first wave that there was a dramatic difference in rates between surgical mask and FFP3.
Even the OP study needed some complex mathematical modelling (not without quibbles from me) to determine the difference in risk between surgical and FFP3 masks not attributable to community acquisition. Without an obvious or defined risk, it seems different to justify allocation of resources to masks that may be unnecessary (with the information at hand).
Thanks for the link! I just found another article that was linked to the one you posted.
PEOPLE ON THIS FORUM - READ THE ARTICLES IN THE LINKS!!
Ditto as above - get a high portfolio score and score highly at the clinical and leadership stations in the interview. The pilot program has only been running since about 2018 or so, so there’s not so much information on it. Here’s a paper on it - https://www.authorea.com/users/330174/articles/457031-the-ent-run-through-pilot-a-questionnaire-survey-of-23-trainees
It’s fairly competitive as the number of jobs isn’t that great - this year 8 and last year 13 or so. Even if you don’t get a job you could still get an ENT themed CST job and then apply at ST3. Good luck!
>Sure, it's common sense, but there is no empirical data that the butts of people using toilet paper are cleaner than those of the people who don't
There is plenty of literature on the subject.
Did you even read that link lol
>The AZD1222 vaccine against COVID-19 has an efficacy of 63.09% against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.
So it stops people getting infected
>No substantive data are available related to impact of AZD1222 on transmission or viral shedding.
Not "it doesn't stop anyone spreading covid" - there wasn't data for or against it at the time it was published (February); evidence is accumulating that it does see here
Considering there are multiple vaccines I don't know which you'd be most interested in but "Interim findings from this clinical trial, using data from participants with a median of 2 months of follow-up, indicate that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine was 95.0% effective (95% confidence interval = 90.3%–97.6%) in preventing symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in persons without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection"
Hey, I work in the research in the field. Antibiotics are needed for cell culture in lab settings because of all the exposure to contaminants. Opening/closing incubator doors frequently, etc.. in a large system this is unnecessary because the exposure is significantly reduced. Apparently there is precedence in other biotech industries for this already, but I’m not experienced in large scale cell culture so I don’t have all the details. If you are interested in a deep dive regarding safety of cultured meat, New Harvest, a non-profit helping to develop the field recently released a huge manuscript detailing all aspects we need to look at. https://www.authorea.com/users/393371/articles/507011-food-safety-considerations-and-research-priorities-for-the-cultured-meat-and-seafood-industry
There’s new evidence that it does prevent infection. They followed hospital workers after getting their vaccine and they had a 90% lower chance of contracting covid https://www.authorea.com/users/332778/articles/509881-single-dose-bnt162b2-vaccine-protects-against-asymptomatic-sars-cov-2-infection?access_token=-hDTQsMUXcCPSpdZV_Lmpg
They missed the point entirely, they're forgetting the in-depth details.
The vaccine will provide immunity but it's different for everybody. What we do know is that 100% of people vaccinated will not get hospitalized if infected.
We still wear a mask because it has not yet been proven that the vaccines completely stop infection of other unvaccinated people. However, it has been shown to slow the spread (1)
The manufacturer isn't liable because the vaccines are still in EUA and mild side effects are fairly common. The companies can be used but only if they've committed "willful misconduct" (you'll be covered by (2)), BUT the ingredients used to manufacture the vaccine are the ones being used in other, much older vaccines. The only difference is mRNA (which will NOT alter the human genome in any way shape or form, it's basic cell mechanisms)
Read this to know exactly why vaccine manufacturers aren't liable:
Cool then KY19382 is what you'll want, out of everything in development it currently shows the most promise:
For anyone interested, I found an interesting article which gives more clarity.https://www.authorea.com/users/333112/articles/459387-ky19382-a-novel-activator-of-wnt-β-catenin-signaling-promotes-hair-re-growth-and-hair-follicle-neogenesis
That's not correct, KY was tested in mice here: https://www.authorea.com/users/333112/articles/459387-ky19382-a-novel-activator-of-wnt-%CE%B2-catenin-signaling-promotes-hair-re-growth-and-hair-follicle-neogenesis
PTD-BDM was found to be significantly weaker and doesn't absorb nearly as well. No one knows whether KY will work in humans yet.
Eindelijk hebben ze daar wat aangepast. Ik wil deze nog toevoegen: artikel van Nederlandse bodem. Tot nu toe hebben alle zwangeren >30 weken die ik heb gezien een keizersnede gekregen wegens óf ventilatieproblemen bij moeder, óf afwijkend beeld van het hartfilmpje bij het kind. We hebben nog geen SARS-CoV-2 gevonden wat is overgedragen. In het buitenland zijn er wel al meerdere vruchtwaterpuncties en PA-placenta's waarbij het virus is gevonden, en ook bij het kind.
Try this substance at 5 micromolar if you're serious.
I'm not OP but a quick google search did find a couple of articles on the subject.
Here's collaboration between several researchers with cited sources on general population face touching: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7362106/#__ffn_sectitle
Here is a peer reviewed article on healthcare professionals face touching: https://www.authorea.com/users/321745/articles/450942-frequency-of-face-touching-with-and-without-a-mask-in-healthcare-professionals?commit=7507e404230004811963671d461d6478872b9cec
Not trying to say anything, I'm not even totally sure on my own views on wearing masks yet. But, you did ask.
Edit: Just realised one of the articles I linked was the same as one posted above. I need to read a little more carefully before I post. I'm still leaving both links.
Thanks. The study is here. I know the paper is a no-name paper, but I thought they did a good job making the study readable to the average person.
The problem with onenote/benchling and all these "free" services, is that they sell your data. You don't want to depend on an external company to store your experimental data.
This is why eLabFTW is a good choice, it respects user freedom and doesn't aspirate your data. It features an electronic lab notebook to log your experiments, and also a database to store all kind of items (think antibodies or cell lines or microscopes).
As for writing papers collaboratively, personally I would suggest using git, as there is nothing better, but I understand that not everyone is confortable with git. So you can try: https://www.authorea.com/
Data on 17 published intelligence GWASs (3 of which reported no associations whatsoever) were downloaded from the GWAS Catalog and analyzed in the current study. Results show a generally low rate of replication: over 87% of the 2,335 included SNPs were reported only once, and only 4 of the 17 studies included follow-up testing in a replication sample. Of these 4, none found any replicable genome-wide significant hits.
Some lazy researchers finding scarce correlation between factors like 'DNA' and intelligence without biological and statistical knowledge.~~I would also find a handful of single nucleotide polymorphisms out of 3200000000 nucleotides if I tested correlation between DNA and love for classic music.~~
They are also giving facts and logic to racists, not realizing most of the 'studies' are only conducted on European descendants.
Um.. did you actually bother to fact check that number?
Because that figure seems to be coming from Ben Shapiro misunderstanding the nature of the study and the statistics within.
Someone even bothered to debunk it mathematically.
Meanwhile here are the results from some studies showing it may significantly reduce suicide.
> A study from Belgium in 2006 found that trans people’s rates of suicide attemptsdropped from 29.3% before surgery to 5.1% after (De Cuypere et al., 2006). Anotherstudy of 50 trans women who received genital surgery found that their physical andmental health was not significantly different from samples of cis women (Weyers et al.,2009). A 2013 study of 433 trans people in Canada found that 27% of those who hadn’tbegun transitioning had attempted suicide in the past year, but this dropped to 1% forthose who were finished transitioning (Bauer, Pyne, Francino, & Hammond, 2013). Anda 2010 meta-analysis of 28 studies showed that 78% of trans people showed animprovement in psychiatric symptoms after transitioning, with a level of psychologicalfunctioning similar to the general population and greater than that of untreated transpeople (Murad et al., 2010).
Now you are merely rephrasing and obfuscating your incorrect statement previously stated. If an EXP-complete problem is in E, you cannot conclude a contradiction. At least, you cannot conclude the contradiction of E=EXP, since E is not closed under reduction, as you just proved yourself. Only because a language L from EXP can be reduced to (EXP-complete) A, and A in E, does not mean that L is in E.
> E is not closed under polynomial time reductions, but the reason is because every problem in EXP can be reduced in polynomial time using the padding argument to a problem of E, however we know this is not possible (it's not possible that E is closed under polynomial reduction) since EXP is not equal E by the Hierarchy Theorem (which means EXP cannot be a subset of E).
Here you are just rephrasing the usual proof of E not being closed under reduction. This is not adding anything to the discussion.
> So I changed the content and I put "Nevertheless, if some complete problem for EXP is in E, then this implies a known contradiction (Hartmanis 1965), (Book 1974)."
Can you elaborate on how you deduce a contradiction?
Thank you for the feedback. You are right. E is not closed under polynomial time reductions, but the reason is because every problem in EXP can be reduced in polynomial time using the padding argument to a problem of E, however we know this is not possible (it's not possible that E is closed under polynomial reduction) since EXP is not equal E by the Hierarchy Theorem (which means EXP cannot be a subset of E). So I changed the content and I put "Nevertheless, if some complete problem for EXP is in E, then this implies a known contradiction (Hartmanis 1965), (Book 1974). " (I think in that way is clearer that the contradiction is hold since a problem in EXP-complete cannot be in E for the same arguments that you showed). Therefore, the proof that LSPACE is not equal to P remains true.....
Hey! I wrote my math EE in LaTeX (as well as many of my IAs) and really enjoyed it; I would highly recommend it as a tool, since it's used for most research journals and papers in university and beyond. However, I do understand that it is not for everyone, mainly the process of learning and deciphering code, so I suggest checking out LyX. LyX is based on LaTeX, but it's a WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) editor, which means that all of the equations and stuff are displayed visually without you needing to decipher the code. It also has a really helpful toolbar for common commands, which helps with cutting down time used to Google for those commands.
Authorea is another example of underrated writing software; it's kind of like a cross in between LaTeX, Word, and Markdown, and it allows you to add in elements of LaTeX and graphing software while still having a rich text editor (instead of code). My only gripe is that it's in beta, and some of the functionality does not work that well (such as exporting to a pdf, which looks ugly a lot of the time).
I personally wouldn't recommend Word or Google Docs (I tried Word's equation editor and IMO it's really, really ugly), although I am a formatting freak so if you don't need as much control over formatting it could work for you. In that case, you could try installing a LaTeX plugin for only math equations, so the math part of your essay could be properly formatted.
Keep in mind that formatting does play a role in your mark, both as a criterion and subconsciously; a well-formatted and pretty essay gives a really good impression on the examiner, regardless of the actual content of the essay. So whatever tool you choose to use, make sure that you check over every single part so that it precisely follows formatting standards; even small things such as non-italicized variable names or misaligned equations can throw off the reader as they read your essay.
Thank you! I have noted that nowhere is mentioned which kernels are available (Python? Julia? Bash?) and similarly which packages installed...
I would suggest to add upfront this information and information on how your project is different from other similar (if any) website conceived to host notebooks.
thank you for any feedback
Try Authorea! Demo here
Bringing the power of LaTeX and Git to all researchers
Since part of this is a search for platforms amenable to intellectual and research activities, Authorea, which I've just stumbled across, looks potentially interesting. "Write and manage your documents in one place, for free."
It's not clear if it has references management (a huge problem for me), but that would be a tremendous advantage.
I'm trying to see who's behind it -- Elsevier or other scientific publishers would be a dealbreaker.
Update: TOS requires real names. I may simply ask them about that.
Authorea publishes some fun blog posts. They try to make science and academic publishing more open and accessible. https://www.authorea.com/blog
You can also see what their users who write in the open are working on. It's pretty cool.
I you have math in your document then you absolutely need latex, otherwise something else can work, although latex is more beautiful.
The aesthetic aspect of latex is not be neglected, personally it motivates me to write much more than another editor.
If you have to work with other people I would recommend using authorea, it's by far the best online editor, and you can export in nice latex format:
One of the big groups I know of working on this is Authorea. Their stated goals are to let you collaboratively write papers, tracking changes with git. References are automatically linked across the web, the paper can be easily 'exported' to a journal format or viewed as a web page without any extra work on your end. And more, but you can just go check out the web page and intro video.
Here's an example of how the papers render as a web page instead of a pdf.
The author just posted a follow-up to this which gives some reasonable guesses based just on "Earth-like" life as we know.
[Seems pretty reasonable}(https://www.authorea.com/users/2/articles/24715/_show_article) to me.
I just updated one of my drafts and they do not show up in the Browse category. Thus, I think as long as they are in draft stage, they are only visible if you have the direct link.