text:
Is there any service that can i use or rent supercomputer for an hour or two?
I would like to use an supercomputer to run my big data project to test it speed. I google the service & see that only this is available for free but it closed last year? Could anybody with experience in using supercomputer know to get access to this kind of hardware?

An hour wall clock time or an hour CPU time?  The former will not be very useful, as just the time to configure your software to run on a supercomputer will likely exceed this time.

i mean an hour wall clock time. I'm not plan to use it on long term. I try to solve a problem that how long can it take for me to search & filter a database with 5 trillions value in it. Obviously normal computer can't do this. I read a lots about china supercomputer can do these kind of things in seconds but i don't think i need that much power

It does not sound like a "supercomputer" will help you here. The time it takes to copy several terabytes of data to any other machine will be slower than searching for values in them locally.

oh, i forgot about this

Important thing about supercomputing/HPC: Figuring out what the bottleneck is. If your application is I/O-limited (which it sounds like it might be), a "generic" computing cluster or supercomputer probably won't be much help.
Also note - since it sounds as though you may not have realised this - that you can't just take something you wrote for a home PC and expect it to go hundreds of times faster on HPC hardware. Most HPCs have similar, or slightly slower, CPUs, memory, etc., than your office PC - they just have lots of it. So you need to put effort into parallelizing.

@dsva I generalised too much, & much depends on the office PC! The majority of Xeon processors run at ~2.6GHz, while non-server ones come at up to 4 - and that's before the home user considers overclocking. National and other prestige facilities tend to have the latest of everything, but some universities, departments etc have realised that they can get more oomph for their money with the previous generation of kit, so less efficient cores. You're right that HPC will usually have the edge on memory. Storage varies widely IME; some have very fast scratch space, some do everything over NFS.

The answer will depend on where you are, who your funding is from, and what you mean by "a supercomputer".
Various countries, research councils, etc., let you apply for computer time if you are eligible. Some universities have their own in-house systems too.
But also, the major cloud providers - Amazon, Microsoft, Google (?) - will let you rent computing resources. This may be suitable for your needs.

My local university never has this kind of supercomputer hardware which is why i'm seeking it online. On average, how much it cost to rent supercomputer for an hour?

@HuangLee Renting it for an hour is rare because most real problems can't be configured and solved in an hour.

lol, this is why i try to find a free or trial service =]]

Depending on the size needed, an hour on Amazon EC2 would probably cost less than a cup of coffee. In fact you might be able to do some work on their "free tier" (I forget exactly what's included). There's considerably more than an hour's learning curve associated. But as noted in comments to the question, if you are dealing with a very large dataset that isn't already in the cloud, the upload time might be more than the processing...

What is your location and funding availability? Typically, one can get some time share on national scientific supercomputers through grants. You might use local clusters of your lab or university for testing and slower, but cheaper and easier available resource.
An alternative are clouds, e.g. the one from Amazon. It is quite cheap in processing time, as compared to commercial offers. It is also readily available. So, if you want a quick test and have money (in contrast to political influence or grants), it might be the faster way.
But generally, there are grids, there are cloud services (that are the same, but somewhat different), and there are the classical supercomputers (still grids, but own hardware, faster interconnections, etc.) While the principles are quite similar, you might need person-months to tune your application to the specific platform. Assuming, you want to squeeze maximal performance, of course.
A possible alternative might be GPU computing. If your task maps well to grid, it might map well to CUDA or OpenCL. Again, there are months of development to get it right, but probably lower entrance costs.

how fast GPU programming possibily can do when you use it on search algorithm? Like can it search about billions value in seconds? Can you be more specific, i heard about this but never have any expreince

@HuangLee That entirely depends on the actual algorithm. Wikipedia might be a good introduction.

@HuangLee To expand on Konrad's answer... The processors in supercomputers do not run any faster than your PC.  The difference is purely having hundreds or thousands of processor cores available.  So you need an algorithm which can easily be split over cores, otherwise it won't run any faster than your PC.

@HuangLee What are you searching for? How is your domain structured? Are there massively parallel implementations out there? How much interaction and communication between the nodes is absolutely necessary? Is memory locality given? Basically, you can put a separate PhD student on such a task – if there are no clear and evident solutions yet.

@ Oleg Lobachev um, actually, its' not that complicated :|


text:
reprinting permission of an instrument image on a website
I have read about reprinting other authors tables and figures, but I couldn't find anything on reprinting laboratory instrument pictures from their manufacturer websites. Can I use instrument photos that I took from manufacturer website without permission?

Read about "fair use" as it applies in your jurisdiction. Is your use clearly 'fair use'? Great, then you can use. Is your use not clearly 'fair use'? Ask permission. It will be very important what your meaning of 'reprinting' is.

I will actually use it in a book chapter showing that they have one of the available instruments in the area. That sounds even like advertising for them, this is like beyond fair use :) My advisor insists I need to get permission even for those pictures from manufacturer website.

"Fair use" is a legal term, not a casual one. Listen to your advisor please. If you are publishing a book, and that book is to be sold, this is a commercial use and almost never considered 'fair use'.

Oh, I didn't take it as a legal term at first, thanks for clarifying!

Also realize you'll need to follow the rules for the most restrictive place you might want to sell the book. So even if your country has a relaxed attitude to copyright, if you want to sell your book in the US or Germany or wherever, you'll need to follow their rules. So the safest thing is to be sure you have permissions for everything you'll be copying from elsewhere. (Also, the marketing department of the instrument company might give you a better quality image than the one you can scrape off their website)

@ThePhoton you are exactly right,some of them offered me to provide good quality pictures already! My other concern is nobody asked me to fill a form or something like that, just positive responses to emails are enough for permission?

You almost certainly need a copyright release in the form prescribed by your book publisher.
Track down the manufacturer's public relations office; one or two phone calls should be sufficient to find the right people. They will be very happy to supply you with pictures and the necessary copyright releases.
If you use these instruments in your own lab and they are at all expensive, or you have a lot of them, there will be an account executive (i.e. sales person) assigned to your institution.  That person will likely be ecstatic to help you get what you need.

Actually, if you use these instruments in your own lab, take your own photograph.  Problem solved.

It might be legal or not, depending on where you are as well as on your purpose in reproducing them. If your purpose is something that they would object to, then you might be in trouble even if what you did is technically legal. Lawsuits, even unfair ones, filed by large companies are difficult and expensive to fight.
They probably hold copyright on the images and some companies wage war to protect both their copyright and their public image. If you think you are in this sort of situation, then I'd proceed cautiously and only with legal advice.
But if it is something that they would likely approve or find uncontroversial then asking might be the best route. For example, if you were wanting to write a user guide, they would probably think it fine.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
Best countries for PhD with good funding
I am interested in applying for Ph.D. in the Molecular biology field. However, I'm not sure which countries offer the best Ph.D. programs. I'm looking for good funding and a reasonable cost of living (in that particular country).  Can anyone guide me, please? Thank you.

So, the quality of education and research is not in your list?

Or future employment prospects? You need to do your research...

@DmitrySavostyanov Surely I'm looking for good quality of education and research. That is what I meant when I said "best Ph.D. programs." :)

Try one of the Nordic countries, Netherlands, or Switzerland. All PhD students are employed full-time as essentially research assistants, get a reasonable salary (close to national median salary), and all those countries have high quality research, good universities, and excellent employment prospects.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
My professor changed a take-home test to an in-class test with no notice. Can I fight the grade?
I’m a college student. For a recent test, the professor originally said that the test was extremely difficult and long and therefore they were going to send us a picture of the exam an hour and a half before we had to take it. They said an hour and a half would not leave enough time for people to look up answers online. We were also allowed to bring a notecard for use on the test.
For some reason they were not able to send the pictures, so they said they would make it a take-home test. I was elated, and switched my focus to a different exam I had later that evening.
At our next lecture, the professor announced that we were taking the test in class that day, but open-note. I was obviously not prepared at all, and had not even brought the proper notes for the test with me.  The result was me leaving half the test blank.
How should I proceed? Is it reasonable to fight this grade?

Common reason to change it like this is to prevent known or suspected collusion/plagiarism among groups of students. But they should have given enough notice that you could bring your notecard. Best practice is to always carry your notecard with you around test time (look over it and revise it when have spare moment), also keep it online and/or on a flash drive, not that any of that helps you now. How many other students did not have their notecard due to the late change?

Just curious: What would have been the purpose of the original idea of sending a picture an hour and a half before the exam starts? In fact, we know that people attempt to lookup answers online during an exam (e.g., found as questions with "I NEED THIS URGENT" on various SE sites), so it is certainly possible to do significant research online (or discuss methods with co-students) in that time window. -- Or would they expect everybody to submit solutions worthy of 3.5 hours of elaboration within an officially 2 hour time frame?

I'm a bit perplexed why they choose to do it that way. If one is doing major changes to an exam, then the students need to be informed of that in due time. I'm assuming you are not the only one who was negatively affected by this behavior? Assuming the situation is as you've described it, I would myself had lodged a complaint at the central examination office or whichever unit is responsible for that at your college. The issue is not that the teacher changed things regarding the exam, it's that the students weren't given enough time to prepare for it.

Thank you for the input and yes I spoke with other students who felt the same way and they also felt unprepared.

If you were to all form a complaint about this, it may lend more weight to the argument. Either way, I hope it works out for you. Best of wishes!

@Calibersrt4 I'm not sure if this is an answer, so I'm putting it in as my opinion here: You don't want to fight the grade. Maybe ask your professor to reconsider including the grades in the final grade or maybe ask him to consider re-doing the exam but if he has any leeway on your grades (such as merit / demerit decisions) then he can use that to enforce the grades anyway. Might do better if you ask in private rather than in class and mention how others felt the same way, offer to include the entire class' opinion by suggesting that he ask in class about the issue.

@JohnHamilton Why would you not challenge the grade?  If the exam was changed to be open-note but many students were prevented from getting their notes, the result is clearly unfair and not representative of their abilities.  Worse than that, it's serious negligence and incompetence from the lecturer.  If it doesn't affect your final result then perhaps you would make a stink privately but not raise a formal complaint; but if it contributes to your course results then you must fight it all the way.

@Graham As we have no idea what sort of a person the professor is, he might or might not be someone of distasteful character. I'm just saying I wouldn't challenge the grade itself and rather challenge the entire test but as more of a suggestion instead of a confrontation. The confrontation might just make the situation worse, making an enemy of the professor instead. (We can't expect everyone to be level-headed, kind or understanding)

@JohnHamilton If it's affecting the final grade for the OP's entire class, it's already bad enough. As for making an enemy of him, if it's the whole class complaining then it's not really something he can do much about.

Look from the point of view of the Professor. The Professor knows himself and tells students at every opportunity that the only way to do well is to come to all lectures, do all the homeworks, and read the book. In fact, the Professor does not think that students who do all that, need to prepare specially for a test, per se. Plus, we are talking about a test here, not a final exam. Final exam is different, most good students DO prepare for exams. I will bet that not only the OP but everybody else too DID not and WOULD NOT have prepared even if they knew beforehand.

@Kostas you expect every student to carry 5 binders of notes, one for each module, every day they have lectures? What about students who write notes on an electronic device which would not be allowed in a test? Should they print them all out just in case of a test?

It is generally accepted that students deserve to be tested on their knowledge under conditions that are known sufficiently in advance to allow them to prepare effectively. Coming to class and being told you have to take an exam right that minute when you were previously led to expect a different testing scenario very obviously does not meet that convention.
Simply put, your professor messed up, and in my opinion it is a no-brainer that you (and any other student who wishes to) should be allowed to retake the exam.
Edit: several commenters seem to interpret OP’s story as reflecting poorly on them and their level of preparedness, and seem to be implying that OP is somehow “not worthy” of having their complaint taken seriously. One of them said outright that OP “deserve[s] to fail the test anyway”. I am baffled by such victim-blaming: almost everyone seems to agree that the professor’s unannounced change to the exam schedule and procedures was unfair, and this unfairness was inflicted on the entire class. What difference does it make whether OP is a top student or on an underperforming student who would likely have failed the exam even under ideal conditions? The unfairness is the same, and the remedy is also the same: both the top student and the underperforming one should be given an option to retake the exam.
But let’s assume for a second that OP’s detractors have a point and that their judgment of OP’s command of the material is both correct and relevant. In that case, I would argue, it is even more important that they be allowed to retake the exam. The reason for this is that it is only after doing poorly on a fair exam that a student will have to confront the reality of their poor learning choices and poor knowledge of the material, and face their situation with a clear mind: they will not have any excuses then to cover up for their poor performance. And it’s only after giving a fair exam that the professor can in good conscience assign a failing grade to a student, and that the university can ethically demand that the student improve their performance or suffer negative consequences to their status in the program. The ability to take an exam under fair testing conditions is not some kind of reward for good behavior; rather, it is an absolute necessity for the credibility of the entire system.
The bottom line is, any way one looks at it — whether as a supporter or a detractor of OP, as a skeptic or a believer — one has to reach the same conclusion. As I said, it’s a no-brainer.

So long as the OP accepts that everyone else should be allowed to retake the exam as well, of course. If the OP was the only student who was "unprepared", that might be saying something about the OP as well as about the prof.

@alephzero I agree with your first sentence - edited. The truth or falsehood of your second sentence is irrelevant to OP’s question. The way to test whether someone is prepared is to give them an exam under fair conditions, and this was not done here, so I don’t see why you feel a need to question OP’s level of preparedness.

I like the use of 'no-brainer' in this context. I am surprised a prof even contemplates such a chaotic setup. Unless the student missed something important, but there is nothing to indicate in the OP's question that this is the case. On the contrary, the student is organised and disciplined enough to direct their attention to a different test.

@alephzero The surprise of a last minute change in test circumstances could hurt some students more than others for reasons completely independent of their level of preparation.

@CaptainEmacs OP could be the least organized, least disciplined person in the world and they would still be just as deserving of being allowed to retake the exam. So as with alephzero’s more negative opinion, your positive assessment of OP’s organizational skills has no bearing on the question.

@DanRomik True, I agree, and I actually gave you a +1, including your comment. However, I thought that I extract my indication of an organised student here, because it contrasts to a disorganised professor and makes clear that the judgement of the professor as disorganised may be founded in reality rather than the figment of imagination of a student who project their own disorganisation on the teaching team (which happens also often enough). In other words, I tried to increase credence to the situation for which you formulated your response.

@CaptainEmacs fair enough. I agree OP’s description of the events is credible.

If you can't fill in more than half a test because some details of its execution changed over the course of 24 hours, you haven't learnt the course material very well and in a perfectly spherical frictionless world would deserve to fail the test anyway as a result. However we live in a "test world" where people are expected and even encouraged to learn by rote for tests, so they are afforded the right to "revise" right up until the last moment if they haven't learnt the material properly to begin with. I don't think this is a very good system (what are you testing?) but hey what can you do.

@LightnessRaceswithMonica yes, students have rights - shocking, isn’t it? And professors have a right to design a fair test that a student can’t pass by studying for it at the last minute. OP’s professor didn’t do that, so they (and you) have no basis to complain or judge OP’s character/abilities. OP does not “deserve” to fail in any universe, spherical or otherwise, in which they weren’t given a fair chance to demonstrate their knowledge.

@DanRomik Disagree. They had a fair chance: presumably weeks or even months of structured learning. If they ignored that opportunity and instead left it until literally the night before the test to learn some stuff by rote so that they could then engage in their box-ticking/mark-gaining exercise, that is their fault and they need to review what they really want to accomplish at a learning institution (because it apparently isn't learning). Students need to rely less on everything being done for them if they want to succeed in the real world. That's ok though - school isn't for everyone.

Sorry I haven’t replied to anyone lately and thank you for all the responses! I’m going to say this, we don’t know what the test is on until the lecture before the test. I will say it’s my fault for not studying as much but I am taking 4 classes and work 45 hours a week so I don’t have all the time in the world but that’s an excuse, so I shouldn’t complain but I took advantage that we would see the test before it was handed out so I didn’t go as crazy as I should have and because of the circumstances I shifted my focus on a different exam which burned me in the end. Thank you for your inputs!

@LightnessRaceswithMonica: While I agree with the general notion that students should make every effort necessary to keep pace with the class, rather than cramming at the last minute or hour or day or even week (and when I was a student I did in fact do so most of the time), it does not erase the fact that this incident involved unfairness, because it was open notes, and some students may not bring all their notes because they have other stuff to carry! Even in my case, where I know everything in the notes, taking the test without them would still give me a speed handicap.

The basic issue here is whether "gaining an academic qualification" is a pointless activity carried out in an artificial sterile environment, or whether it is supposed to tell people in the real world something about the owner of the qualification. I guess I subscribe to the second option, but Don Romik et al prefer to the first one.

@alephzero it’s rude to put words in people’s mouths. I never said anything remotely like what you are attributing to me. If you want to disagree with my answer, go ahead, I welcome your downvote and encourage you to share your own thoughts in the form of an answer. But at least disagree with what I actually said and not some straw man version of it.


text:
How to approach mentor about moving from unpaid to paid research position as undergraduate
I am an undergraduate student in my fifth year. I am currently working on a research project with a professor I met while studying abroad. I am no longer abroad, but I plan on continuing my work with this professor. We have already submitted a paper for review, and are starting work on another paper.
This semester, I am looking for a source of income, and I was wondering if I could be taken on as a paid assistant researcher. I would do this research regardless of if I am paid or not, but if the university is able to procure funds to pay me, I would gladly take them . If I were paid, I would be willing to take on a larger workload, and even potentially work on additional projects. Currently, my work is pretty sporadic. Some weeks I might not work on the project at all, while other weeks I can work over 20 hours.
I am wondering if it is rude or inappropriate to approach the mentor about the possibility of being paid. Ideally, the university would take me on as a part-time research assistant, but I'm unsure if that is possible now that I am no longer abroad and of the responsibilities that would entail. How should I go about asking my mentor about this, if I should at all?
If anyone is familiar with the laws governing remote work, I reside in the U.S. and the university is in Spain.

Paid by a university in another country? Could be difficult because of tax laws and hiring laws.

@JonCuster yeah, I just don't know what those laws are. I would still like to look into it to see if it is indeed possible

In my country, you fall out of the student social security if you work more than 40h/month. Suddenly you pay for health insurance, unemployment, pension system, ...

@Karl in Germany it's 80h/month, but you're allowed to work more during the semester break. I don't know if there is a EU wide regulation that applies for all its members

@Sursula I remember there was something about "Werkstudenten" where the limit was higher. Never applied to me, and it's a long time ... ;) But yea, must've more than 40, I had a second job for a while to save up a little money towards my diploma thesis. @ OP don't do that. More than 40h/month badly collide with your studies in my experience.

@Karl Very unlikely to be a problem for someone in the USA because there's no student social security. Might be a problem if OP is on a student visa or has a restrictive scholarship/fellowship.

@mkennedy I'm not aware of anything like that that would apply to me. Many students in similar situations at my university work.


text:
I have defended my PhD thesis yesterday. Can I ask a committee member for his feedback on my answers during question-answer session?
My PhD is in computational Materials science. I successfully defended my thesis yesterday. However, I felt that one of the committee members was starting to get angry with my answers. I was trying to answer his questions, but his questions were very vague indicating that he clearly did not go through my thesis. Thus I had to answer his questions a bit elaborately, so that he could understand the reasoning behind my answers. I could sense that he was dissatisfied with my answers.
For example: He asked me, how confident are you about your theoretical model when comparing with the real world experimental results?
My answer: Since my model has A, B, C assumptions. It can never accurately predict the experimental/real world results.
His question: What would be your confidence level? What percentage?
My answer: It would be hard to put an exact percentage. But I would go with 90%.
He followed with an "okay".
Can I ask him directly about his feedback on my answers during the session?

It is highly country specific, and could be university specific and domain specific

I'm dissatisfied with your answer to: You didn't explain why assumptions A, B and C cannot hold in the real-world, which would justify your answer. Could that have been why the committee member was dissatisfied? (I'm also intrigued why you'd introduce such assumptions, but that seems beyond scope.)

Did he sign your dissertation after your defense? I wouldn’t interrogate him until he’s signed it.

This would depend somewhat on your general relationship with him. If he is relatively anonymous to you then it probably isn't worth the effort and you won't get the feedback you want.
But if you know one another well, through coursework or other research (etc.) then it might well be worth a sit-down. You may have some misunderstandings and he may be able to help you clear them up. He may be able to point to directions for study or research. There are a lot of things.
But if you approach it right, you also show respect for him and his ideas and that can lead to a better long-term relationship that might be profitable.
And, it isn't especially uncommon that a committee member (even several) haven't read your thesis. A common question from committee members to advisors just before or after the defense is "You're sure this is ok, Jack/Jill?". The advisor nods affirmatively and all is well.

I did not take his courses or yet worked with him. But he was my committee member during proposal, though never had any direct contact with him for the past 2-3 years. So, in that case, you are suggesting that it won't serve any purpose asking him about feedback?

You have to make the judgement. Your advisor can help with advice here, also.

"it isn't especially uncommon that a committee member [...] haven't read your thesis" I had a member of the committee who didn't even know that they were in the committee until I went to their office to find out possible time slots for the defense (committee apparently had been appointed several months earlier, before summer break). Of course, neither had they received the pdf of the thesis...

Congrats! First of all, I am not sure whether your committee member has an expertise in your area of research. Many professors are specialized in specific topics. If s/he is specialized in your topic, you may ask him.  If that is the case, he might have found some missing parts/elements and gave you some clues. If your defense is approved, which is a partial requirement for your doctoral degree, I guess he shouldn't be offended for such questions even if some of your answers during the defense may not be ideal answers. If he is not specialized in your research, the question might have come out of curiosity. For example, one of my committee asked about how my model could be applied in her area.
Many times, these questions are asked to see how you can think outside the picture and consider alternatives.
#Just saw that this is a very old topic.

Congratulations!  Tbh if you have already succesfully defended your thesis it might not be of great benefit to question the comitee.
As highlighted by cbeleites it would depend on the institution, country, culture etc of where you are so I would ask your supervisor for advice first.  I think what would be a good question to ask is "if there were any questions you felt that I did not answer well, how do you think I could have answered them better?"

The answer may depend somewhat on local culture.
For the universities/departments I know here in Germany, the candidate usually has the right to see the documentation of their exam and grading after the process is finished, (for the PhD thesis some parts often also earlier: e.g. the written reviews about the thesis can often be seen already before the defense). This would also include the protocols of the committee decisions.
There is a general idea that an examinee needs to have the chance to review the exam, their answers and the grading for didactic purposes (I've seen some universities explicitly stating this, and also stating that some examiner should be available during this in order to answer questions that may arise for the candidate) as well as for ensuring procedural fairness.

Thus, I'd say:

Yes, you may ask that professor, possibly first making sure that the process is indeed finished also from the university burocratic side.
Otherwise, if the burocratic process is not yet finished, they may say that they can answer only after the whole procedure is formally finished,
or they may refer you to the protocol of the defense.
And of course, you cannot really do anything if they are not willing to discuss further.


text:
License to tie to an extended version of an accepted paper while submitting to ArXiv?
We recently submitted a paper to an IEEE conference, where it was presented and appears in the proceedings. We now wish to submit an extended version of the same work onto ArXiv.
In addition to acknowledging that a short version has appeared in the IEEE conference, are there any restrictions on the kind of license that we can tie to the extended version?

I think that the only restriction would be that once you have issued a permissive license on a work, you can't issue a more restrictive license on the same work. The old license is still valid.

@Buffy I see. Just to clarify, you are saying that the IEEE license from the short version of paper directly applies to the extended version, so anything that complies with that should be fine?

Let me expand my comment, since I think it was misinterpreted. Suppose you produce some work and license it with a permissive license. In the future, you can relicense that work with an even more permissive one, but not a more restrictive one. People can rely on the earlier permissive license for that work, but only for that work.
However, if you produce a new work, you can license that however you wish, or not at all. You can even put "Copyright - all rights reserved" on the new work. But that doesn't change the license to the old one. Anyone relying on only the older work can rely on its original license. But if someone wants to use the new work somehow, they have to abide by its license (or lack thereof). Of course the two works would need to be sufficiently different for this to have any real meaning.
For example you could publish a textbook under a Creative Commons license (CC-BY-SA, say) and then a second edition with all rights reserved. The first edition still has its permissive license. Only the material in the second has the restrictive license.
Note that I am not a lawyer. But the basic idea is that you can't "lock up" IP once you make it available, but you can make it more available if you like.
And, in general, a work that isn't specifically licensed is considered in many (most?) places to be copyrighted. But laws do differ.
So, your best option is to be explicit about the new work's license.

An example, sparked by a now deleted comment:
UC Berekely created a version of UNIX, the BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) with its own permissive license. Apple built OS X (macOS) on top of BSD and used many of its elements. But macOS does not have a permissive license, but a restrictive one (or none - all rights reserved - proprietary software). But Apple didn't "lock up" BSD and anyone can still depend on that original license for their own work. But the copyright holders of BSD cannot, now, put more restrictions on their own license that would, now, invalidate OS X. They could, however, make it even more permissive.

I understand. I am no expert, but by having a paper accepted to an IEEE conference, I think I am "handing over" the rights on the work to IEEE. In that sense it would probably be wrong to redistribute the work with no license. In the context of the BSD / Apple example of yours, my question is: if BSD was very restrictively licensed, is Apple allowed to redistribute macOS (built on BSD) with a more permissive license?


text:
Submitting theory papers to EECS conferences with hard 8/10 page limit
Paraphrasing the 'Call for Papers' for the popular networks conference INFOCOM, submissions on a wide range of research topics, spanning both theoretical and systems research are invited. INFOCOM also has a hard 8 page limit on submissions including appendices etc.
For papers on the theoretical side / relying on proofs, the 8 page limit is far too short a span to submit self-contained papers. Is there a general protocol for submitting longer theory papers to such conferences which do not explicitly mention anything about an extended-paper being submittable alongside.

A common approach is to submit an extended version of the paper to arXiv containing all the additional material needed (e.g., full proofs), referencing the arXiv paper from the submitted conference paper for further details as necessary.
If that does not sound like a good idea, it might suggest that the paper is better submitted to another venue, or perhaps directly to a journal.

Edit: Just looking now specifically at INFOCOM requirements, peer review is double-blind, which means publishing on arXiv becomes more complicated (obviously you cannot reference an extended paper where the authors are given). What may perhaps work is to informally publish an extended version of the paper online (in a "neutral" location of course, not giving away the identity/affiliation of the author(s)) and reference that in the submitted version, then if the paper is accepted, consider publishing the arXiV version with author names and reference that from the camera ready version. Admittedly this gets more complex, where you should probably contact the PC chairs of the specific conference to see what it the norm in such cases.
Searching further in the case of INFOCOM:

Papers with the same title and abstract should not be posted on a public website, such as arxiv.org, or transmitted via public mailing lists.
We allow the use of an anonymous Microsoft OneDrive link for the reviewers to download an extended version of the submitted manuscript with details of mathematical proofs. Needless to say, the extended version of the submitted manuscript will need to be anonymized, following the guidelines above.   It is the responsibility of the authors to make the OneDrive link (and its content) anonymous, with respect to both the owner of the link and people who visit the link. The reviewers, however, are not obliged to read the extended manuscript when evaluating a submitted paper.

Actually, I worry that the "short" version of such a paper would be subject to easy rejection for lack of completeness. That no matter about the longer version. If the limit is fixed the referees/reviewers aren't going to like needing to go to a long version to evaluate. I think your second suggestion makes more sense.

Sometimes this is explicitly forbidden (e.g. NIPS) when the conference has double blind reviewing, as it would reveal the author identities.

@Buffy, I think this is a common procedure for theoretical conferences (submit a short version referencing a long version with full details). I'm certain that reviewers would take this into account (often review forms ask what material the reviewer actually considered, i.e., did they look at the extended version as well).

@Thomas, indeed this also happens to be the case for the particular venue mentioned in the question; I extended the answer accordingly.

I'll guess that if you have a long paper, don't submit it to a venue requiring short papers. Somewhere along the line you will lose. I understand your desire to submit to a top conference, but this might not work well for you in this case. "Think of the referees." :)

I also assume you've considered and rejected the possibility of submitting a subset of the work that is significant and complete. Not always possible, I realize.

Whether it's a good idea or not depends on the paper and the community. Submitting straight to journal, one may lose the opportunity to present the work at that conference, and indeed the prestige of having a paper at that conference. In some communities I know, publishing a conference paper with an extended version and later turning that extended version into a journal paper is very common, and seems a win-win situation.

Some theoretical computer science conferences allow a paper to have appendices, which go beyond the page limit and contain additional information, usually proofs. They do not, however, require the reviewers to pay any attention to such appendices.


text:
Is it appropriate if my former advisor is editor of a journal I submit to?
I am a young postdoc. I am considering submitting a single-authored paper in a journal. My former advisor is member of the editorial board. Would this be appropriate? Obviously she cannot be the handling editor, someone else would have to manage my submission and take the decision. But would it be appropriate at all for me to submit in this journal, or should I just find another?
I am afraid that this situation does not pass the "appearance of impartiality" test; even if my former advisor is never involved in the decision, if the paper is accepted in the end my situation will be "I have published a paper in a journal where my advisor is member of the editorial board", and no one will be able to verify that I did not receive unequal treatment.

This is why you normally have more than 1 editor ;) (often from different places in the world).

You have no ethical conflict whatever. As you say, the advisor might need to not comment on your submission. However, it is the reviewers, not the editors who will be judging the quality of the submission, with the editors making only final selections.
If there are any conflicts they are for other people and for them to resolve.
I doubt that this is uncommon, especially for specialized journals. They likely have seen the situation many times and have appropriate procedures for handling it.

I would upvote your answer, unfortunately I have not enough reputation. Thanks for your input. I chose the other answer because the obviously absurd conclusion (a senior scientist would be unable to submit anywhere) was very convincing.

@user96536, thanks. And welcome to Academia. Both the site and the profession. (User Roland was also a minute quicker than I was.)

@Buffy Roland is the FGITW

@Persistence, was that "West" or "world"? I'm in the East, actually.

@Buffy just another one of the many memes of meta

@Roland, "Fastest Gun in the West" is actually an honorific. It means you were on  the ball and ready with a good answer. The accepted answer actually. Nothing negative is implied by it.

@Roland, I doubt it was meant that way since it was in response to my comment mentioning speed. The quality isn't in question. The OP already accepted it and even said why. User Persistence gave no indication he/she thought it was low quality. I certainly don't.

@Roland I was just having a joke mate, didn't mean anything bad by it. Your answer is solid, I upvoted it. I was just about buffy saying you beat them by a minute.


text:
Conflict of interest as a referee?
I am currently collaborating with three researchers on three non-overlapping and independent research projects/papers (i.e. one with each). I have been asked to review a paper for a journal, for which the same three researchers are the authors.
I am tempted to take it and try to do an objective review, but I wonder if this would represent a conflict of interest. Of course, as they are constant collaborators, I am not sure if there would be any unconscious bias.

Disclose your possible conflict to the editor and let them decide. "I had no direct role in the submitted work but am currently collaborating with Drs. Moe, Curly, and Larry on separate projects on plumbing, eye protection, and suit integrity."
It may be that your field is narrow enough that the editor will prefer your mostly impartial review, or they may prefer to find another referee.
This suggestion of course assumes that you think you can offer a fair review whether or not you find the work suitable for publishing. If you think for any reason you would be unwilling to reject the work if it is poor because of your collaborations, you should not agree to review at all.

Good answer. I was about to write the same thing. I've contacted editors before with that concern.

Disagree.  Current collaboration is a clear conflict.  Turn down the review.

@ScottSeidman I think in most cases the editor would agree with you and find a new reviewer, and as other answers have pointed out this can be a specific journal policy as well. Sometimes, though, in a small community there may be simply too much intermixing between researchers who are qualified to review at a high level (MassimoOrtolano supports this with a comment on another answer that makes the same point). At the end of the day, it's the responsibility of the editor to ensure the best peer review possible, not only the referees.

I can sympathize with that, but would argue that there are some real problems with refereeing in a field that small, and then claiming that the work was objectively peer reviewed.  The editors need to cast a bigger net for referees, and even less expertise would be more acceptable than referees with clear conflict.  It's not the editor's job to protect the field -- it's the members of the field.  I'd like to think in that situation, I'd still turn down the review.

If they're your current collaborators, you should not review. Not many journals list formal policies on conflict of interest, but here's an example from PNAS (emphasis mine):

When asked to evaluate a manuscript, reviewers and editors must disclose any association that poses a conflict of interest in connection with the manuscript. Recent collaborators, defined as people who have coauthored a paper or were a principal investigator on a grant with any of the authors within the past 48 months, must be excluded as editors and reviewers. Referees and editors are asked to recuse themselves from handling a paper if the conflict makes them unable to make an impartial scientific judgment or evaluation. A referee or editor who has a conflict but believes that it does not preclude his or her making a proper judgment must disclose to the journal the nature of the conflict.

If you still want to review the article, I would contact the editor first, disclose the COI, and ask if they still want you to write a review. If they say no, then just let it go.

This is a conflict of interest.  Basically, every policy I've found says that a referee has a conflict of interest if they've recently (for various definitions of "recent") co-authored a paper with one of the authors of the paper under review.

Allure's answer says that PNAS considers collaboration within the last four years as a COI.
This Elsevier policy says that being a co-author of one of the authors within the last three years is a COI.
The IEEE Robotics and Automation Society says five years.
This ACM policy says four years.

You should either decline to review the manuscript (especially if you're busy or otherwise looking for a reason not to review another paper right now) or advise the editor of your conflict of interest and ask if they still want you to review the paper. In a small field, it may be that nearly all potential reviewers have a conflict, so the editor might still want you to review.

Yes, e.g. my field of expertise is so small (impedance metrology) that we all virtually coauthored with one another or have projects in common.


text:
PhD in CS after 4 year bachelors in ECE + 1 year CS masters
I hold a 4 year Bachelor in Electronics and Communication Engineering and will be enrolling in a 1 year Msc in Computer Science. Will I be eligible for PhD in CS anywhere?

Where is this? What country?

If you’re asking whether there exists a CS graduate program that’s likely to accept you, then probably yes. If you’re asking about top x% program in country Y, it starts to get complicated. I’d say that a lot depends on the quality of your masters work, in particular your publications (if any), your grades, your alma mater’s prestige, and last but not least - your reference letters.
Good luck!


text:
Universities accepting non-cs background students to masters programs in cs
My greetings to all users.
I am a student with my UG in Electronics and Communications, planning to enroll in a masters program in computer science (preferably with thesis, but open to coursework option as well). In my UG, I had the following courses related to mathematics and computer science:
Maths:
1. Calculus
2. Discrete Mathematics
3. Optimization techniques
4. Numerical Analysis
5. Information theory and coding
Computers:
1. Computer Programming (basic C)
2. Computer Architecture
Apart from these, I had Data communication also.
Apart from US universities which offer flexibility to non-cs background students to enroll in MS in CS, do Canadian and European universities offer this flexibility also? I visited some university websites, and they have listed some courses like Data structures and Algorithms, DBMS, Operating systems, which I did not have in my UG. Does this mean elimination therein or do I still have a chance?

I would find it difficult even for a university in the US to accept a student for masters studies without, at least, data structures and algorithms. It is one of the most important courses in the curriculum and is where many people drop out of studies because of its difficulty and because it is a stepping stone into more theoretical CS (which is what graduate studies consists of!).
Basic C programming isn't really enough for a masters program. I am not an expert on the UK or European systems but from what I know I would say that your chances are very slim- though not impossible. If I were you- I would take more prereq courses that you see commonly listed on websites (especially data structures and algorithms- I'd also recommend an advanced algorithms course) and then apply as that would maximize your chances of admissions.
Good luck.

For some of the UK universities, you can take the Master Program based on your background.  Even if you do not meet some of the criteria (maybe you did not take DBMS for example), you are still eligible to apply.  Just email the student administration office, they will give you advice and guidance.  Don't worry!
[Rules are dead]
Cheers!

Elimination is perhaps too strong, but you will have a hard time selling yourself to an admissions committee without the named courses at least. All of your classmates will likely have all of those skills and so the courses you take will assume them. It would be a rough time for you even if you were admitted.
But in a lot of places you will get a chance to make your case. These would be smaller schools who don't have to depend on rules to weed out the masses and have the ability to look at each candidate.
But I wouldn't give much encouragement.

Thanks for the feedback. I would like to mention here that I am enrolled at an Indian central govt institution for a six months course covering algorithms, dbms , computer networks and some others. Do universities consider such courses as remedial work or do they not?

I just think you need to make your own case. They are more interested, in almost all cases, in what you know, not how you learned it. Having a transcript of some sort helps you demonstrate that. "Remedial" is a bad word. It usually implies some past failure. That isn't your situation. You just followed a different path. Your "encouragement score" just improved. ;)


text:
How to tell reviewers that I can't update my results
I spent a lot of time during my post-doc doing a big-data analysis using cloud credits paid for by a grant.   I got the research conducted, written up, and submitted to a journal.  The modeling I did is not possible to conduct outside of a cloud environment.
Now, the paper has spent a long time in review, and that grant has expired, the cloud account has been closed, and all of the data has been deleted (although I still have the code).
The reviews are mostly positive, although some of them are requesting minor tweaks to the model, which is not possible.  I also really don't think that the tweaks they are suggesting would improve the model.
What I am wondering is, how candid should I be about the grant situation?  How much should I focus on the science versus my excuses for why I simply can't update the model?
Should I:

Focus on the science and explain why I think the proposed changes to the models likely wouldn't affect the outcome?
Discuss the grant details and tell the reviewers that our grant/cloud access expired, and therefore I can't re-run the models?
Some combination, i.e., tell the reviewers that their proposed changes likely wouldn't affect the model findings, focusing on the science, but then tell the editor about the grant/cloud situation?

I'm also wondering what happens in other fields where experiments can only happen once, and it is impossible to update the findings.

"all of the data has been deleted"  can you explain that a bit more?  Very often experiments cannot easily be repeated, but loosing all the raw data is, well, really bad if you want to write a paper.

Many journals will insist upon a data retention policy.  Not having the data might remove the paper from consideration.

Your sponsor may have such a policy as well

"all of the data has been deleted" - are you sure about this? At least the final raw data that has been used for the ppublication definetly should've been preserved some way. Loss of such expensive data should never happen, it seems it was was very expensive to obtain it. It could be reused for further research; your grand may even require you to keep it accessible. Your problem might be bigger than a simple refusal.

@Karl Since this is a big data project, OP might have been using a copy of a public big data source, copied to a cloud instance of some database for analysis.  Once his cloud host shuts his account down, that copy of the data is gone.

@ScottSeidman If all the grant money has been used, who is supposed to pay for that storage in perpetuity?

@Barmar most retention policies are between 3 and 7 years, not perpetuity.

I'm surprised at the widespread shock at data being gone. If you're running simulations on massive servers/the cloud, and each simulation is very large, but only has minor contribution, basically a resulting data point or small contribution to images... and you know they can be rerun, I'd think it's quite logical to delete and move on for each step if you have limited resources. The feasibility of backing up every bit of intermediate data if there's limited further use seems impractical in some situations. For example when doing massive ensembling meteorologically or monte carlo simulations?

@JeopardyTempest if the numerical experiments can be re-run without further inputs, then those aren't data, they are intermediate values. In my view, at least, but maybe that's just a matter of terminology.

@Barmar Institutions that have no money (or funding body, government) to keep the raw data cannot be considered "academic".

@Karl the dataset was very large (10s of GB).  Additionally, as part of our access to the data, I had to affirm that I wouldn't share it (it contains potentially sensitive information).  So I did not take measures to preserve it after the expiration of the grant.

Tens of gigabytes is not large. The ship is sailed now, but you should definitely have put the data on an external hard drive. Now you have irreproducible results, which basically means no result at all. Not having the computing power any more to do a re-run is a very valid excuse to decline reviewer requests, but the data being gone will be seen as inexcuseable by many..

A frequent response in experimental fields goes something like:
"We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion to use the 'X' technique, and do believe this could lead to an interesting extension of our current results. However, due to the unavailability of 'Y' resource, we are currently unable to undertake this study. We have, however, run a preliminary analysis* along the lines suggested, and found that it does not alter our main results significantly.
...some details/description of the analysis "
*The 'preliminary analysis' is often just a theoretical justification or back-of-envelope estimation. Its purpose is to establish that the suggested changes won't drastically affect your main claim(s). Including this in the response shows that you've genuinely tried to incorporate feedback within the available resources.
Be mindful of the conventions in your field though; @Kimball and @Anyon have pointed out that 'preliminary analysis' would convey something quite significant in their fields. If so, the response above may come across as flippant/disrespectful, and you may consider making a weaker claim, such as 'we estimate', 'we expect', 'our initial assessment is...'

Coming from pure math, I would expect the phrase "preliminary analysis" to indicate more than just a back-of-the-envelope calculation.  Is this phrase really widely used to merely refer to a few minutes of thought?

@Kimball-I understand analysis is an entire branch in math, and this usage must be a little alarming. A possible origin of the lax usage is from 'dimensional analysis', which is prevalent in some fields to make back-of-envelope estimates/justifications.

Coming from physics, I would agree that calling a back-of-the-envelope calculation "preliminary analysis" is a bit strong. In my mind, "running a preliminary analysis" would at least involve (re)processing part of the data. Other phrases such as "we estimate" may be used instead.

@Anoyn- thanks, point well taken and incorporated into the answer.

As an addendum to the other answers, I would also suggest including a brief note about the total computing resources (CPU time, RAM, disk space) you've spent on modeling the problem in your paper (and possibly a more detailed description of the software and cloud computing environments used e.g. in an appendix).  This has several potential advantages:

It lets the reader (including reviewers) know that the modeling process was slow and costly, and not easily repeated with minor tweaks to the model, thus explaining why you have not explored such model variations further.

It provides valuable information to anyone interested in reproducing or extending your results about the effort likely involved in doing so.  In particular, if your reviewers underestimated the effort, it's likely that other readers may do so as well.  Letting them know that your model was expensive to run may save them from wasting time and money on a project they cannot finish, which they may thank you for later.

Conversely, it's possible that some other group might be able to carry out similar modeling much more easily, either because they have more money, faster computers (perhaps because they're reading your paper 10 or 20 years later) or simply more efficient modeling software.  (Never discount the latter possibility, especially if you're using off-the-shelf software.  It's amazing how often even minor algorithmic improvements can speed up a model by multiple orders of magnitude.)  Knowing that the modeling task was challenging for you, with the software and computing resources you had, might inspire someone to write a followup paper showing how to model your system more efficiently (which, of course, would directly benefit your group too) or even to offer to collaborate with you on the problem.

In general, if an experiment you've performed was difficult to carry out for some reason, you should always make that clear in your paper — not merely to brag about doing it, or as an excuse for not doing it more times, but also as a challenge for others to find ways to do it more cheaply and efficiently.  That is how methodology advances.

I would recommend stating the reasons why you don't think tweaking the model will make much difference but also mention that you no longer have access to the computing facilities necessary to re-run the model. You could also say that modifying the model could be part of future work (by yourself or others).
It's not unusual to be unable to repeat an experiment at a later date. I've done research with explosives. The test specimens, and sometimes the instrumentation, no longer exists after the test. Or at least is in very small pieces spread across a test site. Sometimes equipment is damaged and some data cannot be recovered. It costs a lot to do such tests and repeating them is simply not feasible financially.
Ultimately either the tweaks are essential and the work will be rejected, or the work is satisfactory as is and will be published (at this journal or another one).


text:
How is the protest against Elsevier coming along?
I reread Tim Gowers protest against Elsevier as well as other writings from well-known professors that indicate they still protest.
I'm also aware of the boycott.
Has this protest actually changed Elsevier's business practices?

Have you read the article on the boycott on Wikipedia? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cost_of_Knowledge

@allure thanks, I've updated my question to clarify this.

Does the section "reaction from Elsevier" answer your question? If not, what is missing?

@allure I just really want a Winter Bash hat, to be honest.


text:
How can I pursue my intellectual ambitions in physics (specifically quantum foundations) without favorable conditions?
I'm in a bit of a tricky situation and I'm not sure how to proceed forwards in accomplishing my goals. I think I am a bit of an information addict especially in regards to physics. I can't stop reading about the fundamentals of reality and it gives my life an insane amount of meaning. However it's not feasible to do that in my current life situation. I graduated from college with a degree in chemical engineering and I currently work in the battery industry. As many of you have probably experienced a 40+ hour work week isn't conducive to learning difficult topics.
It's especially difficult now because my next steps are developing a deeper understanding of General Relativity and Quantum Field theory from a geometric, gauge theoretic point of view. I want to complete reading Peskin & Schroeder's An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory, Carroll's Spacetime and Geometry as well as Mathematical Gauge Theory With Applications to the Standard Model of Particle Physics. I've made valuable progress in all of these books, but I'm still at the beginning of each of them.
To tell the truth reading these subjects feels like intellectual masturbation. It's interesting, pleasurable and meaningful but it doesn't get me closer to any of my life goals. Ideally I would be able to pursue these ideas, especially the mathematics and philosophy in a full time career. But in order to do that I need to have an advanced degree of some kind to have enough experience and confidence in publishing to contribute something valuable to physics. Reading alone doesn't make it more likely to be accepted into a graduate school. You have to have a provable track record, and I don't right now.
In undergrad I had extremely serious mental health problems. Extremely so. I also didn't give a damn about anything I was learning (with the exception of classical thermodynamics) whatsoever. I did no research and graduated with a 2.97 GPA. This is an very big mistake and I don't know the best way to rectify it.
It is my life dream to publish on the foundations of quantum theory and the propagation of quantum effects to macroscopic levels, but I feel like without a proper degree and in a suitable academic environment I could easily become just another crank emailing their pet theories to professors. I have some ideas about how to move forwards, mostly involving trying to get a masters degree but I'm not sure how feasible they are. I've pondered developing a quantum chemistry type simulator as well as creating 3blue1brown type videos about QFT. I am very uncertain about the feasibility and value of these things. Has anyone else been through similar situations who can comment?
In short, how can I pursue my intellectual ambitions in physics without favorable conditions?
Thanks you for the replies in advance.

You sound ambitious, perhaps bright too, maybe a bit of an optimist. The best thing to do is to assess your situation, including financial, understand what it is that apparently drives you, and make your decision. We all start from where we find ourselves.

This depends on your state of knowledge. Have you mastered undergraduate physics? (For example, could you easily pass a test given out of Griffiths' electromagnetism and quantum mechanics textbooks?)

@Aruralreader Thank you!

@knzhou Probably, although in all honesty I hated Griffiths QM with a passion and I skipped to Sakurai. I've never studied electromagnetism in too much depth to tell the truth. It's something I want to work on but that seems  a bit far out now.

@KPomykala I think your best bet is to brush up on all that material (you need it all to truly understand QFT, in any case) and apply directly to physics Master's programs. It is absolutely possible to get into such programs with your kind of background. Once you're there you'll have time to deeply learn the advanced topics, and you'll be set up to apply for PhDs if you want to.

For example, the Perimeter Institute runs a highly regarded Master's program for people with "unconventional" backgrounds. They also do a lot of research in quantum foundations.

For what it's worth, know that there are plenty of people in your situation i.e. majoring in engineering in undergrad and transitioning to Physics for graduate school (including me). I know several people that have successfully done it, even directly to a reputable PhD program. But considering the fact that you do not have much research experience, a Master's degree is your best bet.

I am going to answer this question from the perspective that you are looking to start a traditional academic career as a physicist, given the background in your answer, and try to give some perspective and practical advice. However, I want to emphasize that what I am not telling you is how to evaluate whether following this path is really the best thing for you when you consider all of the factors in your life and happiness; only you can make that decision.
The only way I know of to become employed full-time to write physics papers is to become a physics PhD student and get a PhD. The mainstream track at that point is to become a tenured professor (which itself requires several steps: typically 2-3 postdocs and then a 6-year term as an assistant professor before a tenure review). You should be aware that as a professor your job is not only to write papers; in fact most professors spend only a small fraction of their time doing research themselves, and much more time supervising their students and postdocs (who are in turn spending most of their time on research); writing grant proposals and reports; serving on academic committees; and teaching. In some fields you may be able to get a PhD and then do industrial research, rather than become a professor. My background is in theoretical astrophysics/cosmology/gravitational waves, so I am not super familiar with quantum foundations specifically, but you should research the realistic job options in the field you want to pursue, including salary, location, probability of obtaining a position, and whether these options appeal to you. You should also be aware that the pandemic has had an impact on academia in terms of available funding and positions, and the long-term impacts of this are unknown.
To get into a physics PhD program in the US [this may not apply in other countries], the typical route would be to get a physics undergraduate degree and obtain good grades, do research, get good scores on the GREs and Physics GREs, and have good letters of recommendation from professors familiar with your work, from research or courses. Of course you don't have all of that, and you don't need all of it, but you should know that your competition for limited places in PhD programs will have those things, and you will need to show that you have similar promise by being strong in other areas.
I think, as others have said, a good route would be to pursue a Master's degree. Typically you pay for a Master's degree, while a PhD program should cover your tuition and provide a stipend for you to do research (many students in the US go straight into the PhD program without a Master's degree). You should never pay tuition for a PhD program yourself, or feel you must have an additional job to support yourself (though you certainly can make money on the side if you want). So, with that in mind, on the one hand getting a Master's means you will need to pay for tuition. But, on the other hand, you are paying the University, rather than them paying you, so this tends to work in your favor in the admissions process. I also genuinely think that pursuing the Master's is worth it, since you will have a chance to study the subject, get good grades, get involved in research, and meet some professors who can write letters of recommendation for you.
I cannot emphasize enough how important this last point is. You need allies who is at the professor level who will write you strong letters. Your goal during your Master's should be to get to know your professors. Go to their office hours and ask them about their research and ask them questions about the course material. Ask to do research with them. Do well in their courses. Taking courses and doing research is very difficult and time consuming, and of course  you won't make as much progress on research during the school year as you would if you were only focused on research, but carve out a substantial fraction of your time (10 hours / week) to do what you can. Spend the summers doing research.
It sounds like you know what field you want to pursue. In this case, you should focus your energy on the best possible preparation for that field. Do not get a degree in anything that is not directly related to quantum foundations. I actually don't know exactly what field you mean (you should clarify this for yourself), but I suspect quantum foundations is interdisciplinary enough that depending on exactly what you are interested in, you could find departments that cover this field in physics, computer science, chemistry, and maybe others. Look at departments before you apply for your Master's and look for places that have experts doing research in the aspects of quantum foundations that you are the most interested in. Write about these people in your application and be specific about how your interests overlap with theirs.
Other advice for applying to the Master's program: study for the GRE and physics GRE and get good scores. Reach out to former professors whose courses you did well in and ask if they would be willing to write a letter of recommendation. Spend some time crafting a personal statement which explains your drive and ambition and demonstrate to the committee reading your application your passion about physics by explaining self-learning activities you have undertaken. If at all possible, find someone -- ideally in the field you are interested in (a friend, former professor) -- to look over your materials and give you critical feedback before you send it.
Finally I would stop studying QFT, GR, and gauge theory. These topics are not relevant for quantum foundations, so you should drop them to focus on things that will help you more directly. Perhaps there are some areas where they overlap, but this would be a super niche research area and you need to triage and focus on learning the basics on what you are the most interested in. Based on the comments, it also sounds like you may have gaps in your knowledge of classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, and electromagnetism (although you were good with statistical mechanics). You must learn all of these subjects at the undergraduate level very well; this should be where you focus your effort in self-learning. These subjects are foundational and are assumed knowledge for any physicist. More to the point, you will need to demonstrate knowledge of these topics to succeed at the Master's level -- you will need to know this material to do well on the Physics GRE; to do well in the Master's level courses you will need a strong background so you aren't starting from scratch; when you start doing research, you will need background in at least some of these topics to be able to build and understand the topic you work on. You can't walk before you can crawl, and it makes no sense to read advanced topics in quantum foundations (or for that matter, GR, QFT, and gauge theory) without a strong understanding in these subjects ("strong" meaning "you can solve the homework and exam problems correctly and in a timely way which are given in a good undergraduate course.")

I'm adding a few recommendations that came up in the comments.

The OP clarified that their interests were in "many body localization" and "the mechanism that propagate quantum effects to macroscopic levels". This is not at all my area of expertise, but I recommend some keywords to search for these topics would be "condensed matter physics" and "Anderson localization". I think superconductivity is an area that is very active with a long history and very much related to coherent quantum effects with macroscopic amounts of matter.

For electromagnetism, I would actually advise against using Jackson as a textbook. It's famously painful. There are other books that are good, such as Zangwill.

It's not necessary to work through books written at the graduate level (those books are the foundations of a master's degree). Basically you want to be able to do the homework and exam problems of good undergrad courses.

Here's a link to an excellent MIT undergrad QM course as an example: ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-04-quantum-physics-i-spring-2013/

David Tong has an excellent series of lecture notes on many topics in physics, which always start with an annotated bibliography: damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/teaching.html I'd focus on the things that will come up on the GRE and Master's courses: Classical Dynamics, Quantum Mechanics, Electromagnetism, and Statistical Physics. – Andrew 13 hours ago

The Physics GRE isn't a breaking point especially since you can take it multiple times and send your best score. But it is important to do well on it and it also will give you a sense of what topics you should know. (You need to know things in a bit more depth than what's asked on the GRE, but I think to do well on the GRE you need to know things at more depth than they are asking, given the time constraints...) It is a bit of an annoying hurdle and isn't representative of physics research at all, but take it seriously.

In general (especially for self-study) it's best not to rely on one resource, but to have at least two from different perspectives so (a) if the explanation in one resource doesn't make sense you can get an alternative explanation, and (b) so you can increase the robustness of your knowledge by avoiding "overfitting" to one way of looking at things. In a lecture course, the lectures and the textbook already provide two different sources, but even then it's better to look at more.

This is a good response. Since I am self taught there are gaps in my knowledge that I should fix. In all honesty I've really, really hated most of the books that introduce these subjects at an undergraduate level.
I think the main things I should review intensely are:
Classical Mechanics via Goldstein, Electrodynamics via Jackson, QM via Sakurai, Stat mech via Pathria.
At the same time I need to be researching masters programs extensively. I very much like many body localization and the mechanism that propagate quantum effects to macroscopic levels (I consider this quantum foundations)

Depending on whether I find it's viable to study these texts in my current position, I can go down to a lower level. I love Sakurai, but its not unlikely that I can't do the same with the other fields. What are your comments about all of this?

@KPomykala I would classify that as part of "condensed matter physics" -- in case that helps as a search term. I would actually advise against Jackson. It's famously painful. There are other books that are good, such as Zangwill. Anyway it's not necessary to work through all the books you listed (those books are the foundations of a master's degree). Basically you want to be able to do the homework and exam problems of good undergrad courses. Here's a link to an excellent MIT undergrad QM course as an example: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-04-quantum-physics-i-spring-2013/index.htm

David Tong has an excellent series of lecture notes on many topics in physics, which always start with an annotated bibliography: http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/teaching.html I'd focus on the things that will come up on the GRE and Master's courses: Classical Dynamics, Quantum Mechanics, Electromagnetism, and Statistical Physics.

I like Tong quite a lot - I like his notes on GR better than I do Carroll's book. This sounds like a good starting point and thank you for pointing me towards Zangwill. It sounds like the physics GRE could be a breaking point for me - do you agree?

@KPomykala I would be positive; the Physics GRE isn't a breaking point especially since you can take it multiple times and send your best score. But it is important to do well on it and it also will give you a sense of what topics you should know. (You need to know things in a bit more depth than what's asked on the GRE, but I think to do well on the GRE you need to know things at more depth than they are asking, given the time constraints...) It is a bit of an annoying hurdle and isn't representative of physics research at all, but take it seriously.

@Andrew the resources you shared in the comments are great! Would it make sense to only refer to Tong's notes and solve the problem sheets, or is it more of a supplementary reference to a textbook?

(+1) as I was reading, and I wanted to add another upvote (even two more) for your last paragraph, but at most one upvote is possible. (And no, I didn't even try. I've known this from the time I started in Mathematics Stack Exchange, back in 2011.)

@justauser In general (especially for self-study) it's best not to rely on one resource, but to have at least two from different perspectives so (a) if the explanation in one resource doesn't make sense you can get an alternative explanation, and (b) so you can increase the robustness of your knowledge by avoiding "overfitting" to one way of looking at things. In a lecture course, the lectures and the textbook already provide two different sources, but even then it's better to look at more. Anyway, I'd look at Tong as a starting point, and also look at his bibliography.

Professional physicists who study quantum foundations are a tiny portion of professional physicists.  I've met a lot of physicists, and I have yet to meet one who studies foundations, though I have read their papers.
I'd suggest that the chances of getting such a job are very low, but might be increased if you would like a job that involves teaching.
The best way to get information on niche fields is to read profiles of people who work in those fields.  You can also do informational interviews.


text:
Sharing paper after it has been submitted to journal?
I am a co-author on a mathematics paper, and we have submitted it to a journal. It will take a long while before we hear back from them, and I wanted to share my paper with friends and family.
If you share a paper before it has been submitted, it is theoretically possible that other people could steal your work, etc, before you submit it. What about after you have submitted your paper?
This might be similar to Can I publish research as "working paper" after journal submission? but I am curious about the mathematics world of academia. Also, what about other fields?

I strongly recommend that you share your paper, not only with your friends and family but also with the entire academic community.  Upload your paper as a preprint to arXiv.  This is the major way for papers to be shared before publication (and after), so that other researchers can learn about your results without waiting for the peer review process (which in mathematics is particularly slow).
(Of course, you'll need to make sure your co-authors agree before you do this.)
See Why upload to academic preprint sites like arXiv?
You may want to double-check that your intended journal will still publish papers when their preprints are on arXiv, but I've never heard of any reputable publisher in mathematics having a problem with this.

If you share a paper before it has been submitted, it is theoretically possible that other people could steal your work, etc, before you submit it. What about after you have submitted your paper?

I would not worry about it.  The journal has a record that you submitted it, which would be powerful evidence in case of a priority dispute.  Posting to arXiv is an even stronger form of evidence, since it's automatically visible to the public.
In most cases, "stealing work" is a minimal risk, compared to the much larger risk of not getting sufficient attention for your work.  It's usually best to err to the side of sharing.

Is uploading to arXiv not considered "publishing" somehow? Why does the following from the AMS worry me about this advice: "No paper that has been previously published, or is being considered for publication elsewhere, should be submitted to the American Mathematical Society, nor may a paper that is under consideration by the American Mathematical Society be submitted elsewhere."

@Buffy: No, arXiv uploads are not considered "publishing" for purposes of duplicate publication / submission.  Additionally, you can see at http://www.ams.org/publications/authors/ctp that arXiv uploads are explicitly authorized, and the formal agreement at http://www.ams.org/authors/ctp.pdf asks the authors to certify that the work has not been previously published except as a preprint.

(Note that my previous comment is applicable in mathematics, and all mathematics publishers I know have similar policies.  It is not necessarily applicable in other fields; in particular I have heard that many publishers in chemistry will consider a preprint to be prior publication.)

It would be good if you put all the information in these comments into your actual answer to make sure they get preserved. Links and all. Comments can get removed.

I think the comments would be a bit of a digression from the message of my answer.  Since your answer mentioned the AMS specifically, you're welcome to adopt those links into your answer if you wish.

@Buffy Posting a preprint to arXiv is not considered “publishing” in any field that actively uses arXiv, in particular, physics, math, and CS.

Friends and family should never be an issue. Presumably you trust them to honor a request not pass the paper on.
In general, you can't stop plagiarism. You can only watch for it to occur and object when it does. The evil-doers will evil-do.
But after you submit your paper others (editors and reviewers) have seen it and know that as of a certain date, the work came from you. There are other ways to establish priority, but that is pretty good.
The question you cite gives good advice. Publishers differ. But until you relinquish copyright the paper is yours, even if submitted. Some publishers will want to be the ones to give the first-views of a paper. But most will tolerate a small amount of sharing just to keep good relations with authors. But a separately published (even if informally) version will upset some of them if you do it after submission. It is hard to call it a work in progress at that time.
For mathematics, look at the editorial policies of the various publications of the AMS.


text:
Do universities in the USA help postdoc researchers with the visa process?
I am currently at the end of my PhD and will be defending my thesis in the next two weeks. I have been offered a postdoc position at a university in the USA that is set to begin in October 2018.
I have asked the HR department of my new employer in the USA for information about the visa application process but I have gotten very little response/information. Is it typically up to the postdoc to sort out their own visa or do universities in the USA usually guide you through the process?
Note: I am moving from Ireland to the USA, if this makes any difference.

Yes, they should help you with the visa process, at least to some extent. In fact, they will likely have to sponsor your application. You will probably require a J1 (non-immigrant) visa for a postdoc in the US. More information on how to apply for such a visa is provided here.
In short, you will need a designated sponsor. Your university likely has this status. They have certain obligations to support and monitor your progress during the stay. If the university has an international office, they can likely provide you with more detail.
In any case, for you to apply for a J1 visa, you will need to have a copy of Form DS-2019 provided by the university. This is issued by the designated sponsor, confirming your eligibility for the J1 visa program, and contains some details about their exchange program (under which postdocs from abroad will typically fall, if my understanding is correct), start and end dates, and how your stay is funded. Without this DS-2019 form you cannot apply for the visa at the embassy. You will also need to bring it to the interview at the embassy, where the consular officer will evaluate your application.
One important thing to note is that if you will bring dependents with you (spouse or child), they will need their own DS-2019 forms to apply for a J2 visa.

A J1 visa comes with various restrictions - most notably a requirement that you return to your home country for a period of time at some point.  It is generally worth pushing for your employer to sponsor you for an H1B, though they may end up saying no.

@AlexanderWoo: good point, although I believe the precise return requirements depend on the source of funding, among others. In addition, it is possible to obtain a waiver for the return requirement (in theory, I don’t know about practice). If you intend to stay in the US, going for a H1B would make sense, but I am not sure how willing universities are to do sponsor that. I think all of my postdoc friends in the US were on a J1.

Indeed, as mentioned in Pieter's answer, the university will have an office that is supposed to help you with this (often called International Scholars Office or something of the sort).
It does happen that administrative offices are not always as helpful or responsive as they ought to be.  As a postdoc you presumably have a mentor or PI at the university whom you will be working with, and they have a vested interest in making sure you can start work on time.  So I would reach out to your mentor and let them know you are having trouble getting what you need from the international office. If there are specific deadlines that have to be met, include that information, to give a sense of the urgency. They are likely to be able to prod the people in that office and help move the process along.
Keep in mind that this is usually the same office that handles visas and other matters for international students, and the school year is just about to start at most US universities, so the office may well be flooded with issues related to incoming students.  As such, they may be able to be more responsive after the first couple weeks of the school year, once the flood eases.  But it's not clear if you can afford to wait that long.


text:
Is Mendeley in trouble?
Mendeley is (used to be?) a popular tool for reference management, but it seems that the past year or so it's been in a downhill trend. First they discontinued their mobile app, then they announced that they're discontinuing the desktop application, and finally we're stuck with the Mendeley Reference Manager which is nowhere nearly as ergonomic nor as functional as the desktop application they used to have. (And to boot, the Reference Manager can't be used in private mode on the browser.)
I'm bewildered by such an apparent decline of an otherwise very useful tool. Any rationale behind it?

Ask Elsevier. Only they know. I can only comment that it is only a pale reflection of the big issues we are having in our western world, i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership .
Concentration of media means concentration of ideas which means ownership of ideas as well as deciding which ideas should circulate and which one not.
In your specific case, it is just concentration of profits, but still ...

Mendeley Reference Manager looks like just a replacement for Mendeley Desktop, and maybe some people find it easier to use. A mobile app for reference management doesn't sound very useful to me. So it doesn't look like a big decline to me.

Mendeley should die.  Hated it from day one.  No privacy and clunky.

To whoever closed the question: What would be an appropriate question with the tag reference-manager if mine isn't appropriate?

The rationale behind it is that Elsevier figured they can make more profit by not spending money on developing and maintaining useful software. A great reminder to avoid vendor lock-in and support open software and standards. Zotero, for example, checks those boxes.


text:
Should I defer or start a PhD program right away?
I just completed a Master's degree in Canada and have been accepted to a US PhD program beginning this fall as an international student. My Master's degree allows me to work as a healthcare provider.
I'd like to work part-time throughout my degree as I intend to conduct clinical research and also to continue practicing as a healthcare provider after my PhD (not sure if I'm interested in academia). I have no real work experience in the field. My field requires licensing to practice and there is a ton of licensing regulations in the US - especially as an international applicant. I haven't had much luck contacting the license board to gather more information about rules for international applicants. The state license documents are vague and I'm concerned there are requirements I'm unaware of that may block or delay me from practicing in the states.
I considered deferring my program start date to work for a year in my country, since having work experience would smooth the licensing process - the US requires a year of working under supervision before being licensed.
However, at this point I am quite certain it would be too late to request a deferral without ruffling feathers in the department, as I have accepted the offer and funding, and the school year begins soon.
There is an option to take a leave of absence during my program to complete the supervised work requirement. That said, I worry my advisor won't agree to a leave of absence (although my advisor knows of my interest in becoming licensed), as it might negatively impact my research projects.
I've mostly made up my mind to head directly into my PhD program, and try to navigate the (vague and confusing) license requirements once I'm there, thus potentially risking delays in being able to work as a clinician. I think this way I won't damage any departmental relationships and funding possibilities from deferring admission so late in the game. I do have the leave of absence as a possible back-up plan. The department may also help me with the license portion once I'm on campus.
So my questions is: Do you think this sounds like a solid decision, or are there other factors/perspectives that I haven't considered?
Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated!

In the normal case of an F1 student visa, you wouldn't be able to work at any off-campus job while studying in the United States.  Have you considered this issue?


text:
Can I publish an algorithm without time complexity?
There's a problem 'A' and there are already algorithms to solve it but I came up with a totally new algorithm. My doubts are:

Should I find time complexity?
Where can I publish my algorithm without time complexity?
Should I publish an algorithm in a math or computer science engineering journal?

Strongly related question: Is improving a simple algorithm without beating the state of the art still publishable?

Without knowing the time complexity of an algorithm, it's hard to say anything about it.  Analyze the complexity of your algorithm before trying to publish.

It is not even sure that time complexity is still relevant. It is mostly for sequential algorithms, but most of gains in hardware power these days come from adding more cores and relates to parallellizeable algorithms.

@mathreadler Time complexity is still a thing for parallel algorithms, usually stated as a function of the input size and the number of processors.

@JeffE yees yees of course it is a thing, but how it scales with nr of processors becomes more and more and more important.

@mathreadler That scaling is precisely what "time complexity" means for parallel algorithms.

An algorithm that solves a problem in a new way is interesting, regardless of whether you beat the state-of-the-art, because that new way might start a new line of research that beats the state-of-the-art. But, as it stands, you seem unaware of where your algorithm ranks and establishing that is highly desirable (perhaps even necessary) prior to publication. Thus, although it might be possible to publish now, it seems better to delay publication to establish your algorithm's ranking.

If you submit your paper to a journal it will face review. If it passes review, the editors will consider it for publication. However, I strongly suspect that the reviewers will question the lack of the analysis in their report and ask for it to be included. That isn't necessarily the case, but the paper/algorithm otherwise needs to be interesting enough for them to want to see it in print even without the analysis. I doubt that will happen, however.
You are free to submit, but there are a couple of gates you must pass through on the way to publication. Better to make the passage as easy as possible.


text:
Answering form letter graduate school application emails
As a professor in a North American university, I receive a number of what I consider to be form letter graduate school application emails from outside the country. These emails generally feature some statement about being familiar with my research or offering generic praise for my research, followed by a description of the applicant's background and skills that have absolutely nothing to do with my research (but fall into the broader field of my department).
I tend to quickly delete these emails, but I'm concerned that not responding may be ambiguous and may further contribute to the practice of these students sending out mass form letter emails. I'm considering drafting a form letter response acknowledging that I received the email and specifying the background/skills I am currently looking for, with an invitation to send another email if the student can demonstrate how their experience aligns with my interests.
Does this seem productive? Are there better ways to respond to such emails?

I use a form letter to reply to some* of these emails:

[Given Name of Person],
Thank you for your interest in my research. Please submit an
  application to our graduate program via [my university]'s graduate
  studies website: [link to application]. You will have opportunity in
  the application process to attach examples of any work related to [my
  field and specialty] and can state your research aims there if you
  wish. Our graduate coordinator ([email to grad coordinator]) can
  answer further questions about the application process.
Sincerely,
[My Name]

I do this just in case I might have stumbled upon a Ramanujan-like person whose work is brilliant, but perhaps not yet formalised. This form letter has produced I believe two applicants (that I am aware of), one of whom was accepted to the university and did work with me. Almost always, the person realises that their GRE/TOEFL/IELTS scores are not nearly good enough and they do not even apply. I feel that sending this form letter avoids the unfortunate process of emailing back and forth with a potential student only to find that they have next to no experience in my field and cannot pass the entrance exams.
If they email me further wanting me to look at their work and they have not submitted an application for graduate school, I usually ignore those emails. Making them apply through the graduate studies department screens 95% of them right off the bat.
*I say "some" emails because there are some emails that are clear phishing scams.

This is basically my solution.  Some of the students behind these emails have ultimately been admitted to our program, so it wasn't a complete waste of time to respond.

Actually Ramanujan isn't the best example here. If he (resurrected he) were to write to you he would present theories that, while correct, you would be unlikely to recognize as such, as he was so far beyond his time that it was far too easy to misjudge him. Einstein had the same problem. However, the letters I tend to get are normally just shotgun blasts without actually saying anything.

@Buffy I guess it depends on how closely I can emulate G.H. Hardy. I will add of course that many of the emails I receive such as the ones described by the OP are, as you say, "shotgun blasts" (usually for some sort of engineering). I never really reply to these. (The best one I ever got was someone looking to do "fashion design and aesthetics." I am a statistics researcher).

@Vladhagen, sad that I missed the fashion design one. RE Ramanujan, I don't think he ever got an earned doctorate. Too busy doing math, I guess. Plenty of honorary degrees though. He didn't need mere mortals like us.

I find them easy to just delete. I have a fairly public persona IRL and so before I retired I got a lot of them. But obviously, all they really knew about me was my email address. They want to join my (non existent) lab, having skills that are completely unrelated to anything I've ever done or shown on my website. I'm sure Hydraulic Engineering is a fine field, but I can't think how I'd integrate them into a Computer Science program, when they don't even indicate that CS is their goal.
I can't think of any constructive reply. Certainly none that would slow the flood. If the student hasn't at least looked at what I do, I don't think I owe them much. Continuing the conversation seems entirely unproductive for either myself or the student. I suspect that they send out hundreds of these looking for a fraction of a percent of replies.
I've often wondered if professors in some parts of the world make it a requirement that their students send out a certain minimum number of CVs. A certain large number, I suspect.