They did it before Telegram ICO was announced so it is not an evidence. Now, they have no other financially profitable choice but to make FUD to increase the likelihood of Telegram's fail. I don't say it is bad, it is just a better description of the events.
It's not even fake news and even plagiarism is a weak description. It's blogspam / content farming for cheap advertising dollars by eastern europeans. This has been going on for ages, much like SEO gaming, it's just using another hacky trick, and using Cyrillic characters is hardly new trick either.
It is described as Evolution Strategies (proposed in the 1970s) which adapt individual mutation rates depending on the search landscape at hand. Unfortunately, biologist will learn about in a few decades at best.
It's not 'one day', the majority of Mozilla's funding has always come from 'search royalties'. Wikipedia says initial funding first came from AOL in 2003, then they had a deal with Google from 2004-2014. In 2014, it says they signed a deal with Yahoo. This is nothing new.
and yet it was the only browser that really opposed EME, and only backed down once not only every browser had implemented the extension, but many major media providers too. Basically once the browser became useless for media consumption because of it.
I think you mixed up Circulation Journal ("Official Journal of the Japanese Circulation Society", http://www.j-circ.or.jp/english/cj/) with Circulation (Journal by the American Heart Association, http://circ.ahajournals.org/)
The latter is the source of the coffee article.
A review process shorter than 2 months is an extremely rare thing in scientific journal from CS fields to Nature journals. Most often it happens with shitty journals and / or when the editor has a horse in the race.
This seems like a very generalizing claim, do you have evidence for it? The AlphaGo paper in Nature ( https://www.nature.com/articles/nature16961 ) also has less than two months between submission and acceptance.
I don't know of systematic research on this but it's consistent with what I've seen in the fields I've worked in (linguistics, psychology, geochemistry). The AlphaGo paper was special because it's a super-hot high-profile topic and the journals don't want to get scooped (remember Nature is in competition with Science, PNAS, etc. for eyeballs). However exciting a conclusion may be for psycholinguistics, it won't get fast-tracked in the same way.
another comment provided a good explanation (see below), now it remains to check the editor
"Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr. van Dam received a research grant from the Nestec Company. No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported."
Guys, Nestec own the world's biggest coffee machine company, Nespresso.
I didn't know that there was an accusation because we was Jewish. I meant that he was plagiarist and it has nothing to do with his origins and beliefs.
