You're reading the public-facing archive of the Category Theory Zulip server.
To join the server you need an invite. Anybody can get an invite by contacting Matteo Capucci at name dot surname at gmail dot com.
For all things related to this archive refer to the same person.
Paolo Perrone (Jun 16 2020 at 14:25):Hello. If you have any questions or problems regarding the technology, feel free to write here. Chat, Zulip, YouTube, Zoom, audio, video...we'll see what we can do.
Georgios Bakirtzis (Jun 29 2020 at 17:13):Hi Paolo, I was wondering if having the camera on while presenting is mandatory. I have found that having a bad quality image of someone is more distracting to me and I also my bandwidth will be happier that way. I can work around this but it's a strong preference of mine. In addition, I wanted to ask that if that happens is it possible to record the presentation without zooms black box with my name on it on the top right but instead have just the slides. Thank you for all your work for this conference.
Paolo Perrone (Jun 29 2020 at 20:28):Giorgos Bakirtzis said:
Hi Paolo, I was wondering if having the camera on while presenting is mandatory. I have found that having a bad quality image of someone is more distracting to me and I also my bandwidth will be happier that way. I can work around this but it's a strong preference of mine. In addition, I wanted to ask that if that happens is it possible to record the presentation without zooms black box with my name on it on the top right but instead have just the slides. Thank you for all your work for this conference.
Hi Giorgio!
First of all, no, it's not mandatory to have your camera on.
Moreover, in the Zoom recording, the black box should not appear by default, once the screen is being shared: one sees the shared screen, and on top of that the webcam window if and only if it is active (no black box on top of the slides).
Georgios Bakirtzis (Jun 30 2020 at 15:04):One more question I have not used EPTCS before and I am running into an issue where I have large tikz files separate under figures which start with \documentclass[standalone] and then I input them in a figure environment in my main.tex file. EPTCS seems to not allow me to upload the project because it says I have more than one file starting with \documentclass
Georgios Bakirtzis (Jun 30 2020 at 15:36):This is insanity btw and I think my only solution is to go and do everything inline facepalm
Nathanael Arkor (Jun 30 2020 at 15:38):Why can't you remove \documentclass[standalone] and simply input the figures, instead of inlining by hand?
Georgios Bakirtzis (Jun 30 2020 at 15:45):That messes up the scaling of the tikz as includesstandalone behaves better but that is a better solution than inline thanks!
John Baez (Jun 30 2020 at 18:34):@Christian Williams had enormous problems getting the automatic EPTCS system to accept our TeX file and eventually gave up - he gave it to Bob Coecke "by hand".
John Baez (Jun 30 2020 at 18:36):So, there's a chance that no matter what you do, @Giorgos Bakirtzis, it won't work. In this case, rather than torturing yourself, it would be better to talk to a human involved in the process.
Georgios Bakirtzis (Jun 30 2020 at 19:07):@John Baez I managed to upload a version that somewhat works (albeit it messed minor things in the diagrams) but whoever made this system must have been a sadist. Never had this much frustration with a publication system
Brendan Fong (Jun 30 2020 at 20:29):I also had huge problems with the EPTCS system and TikZ. The editor at the time acknowledged there are some compatibility issues, but said it wasn't a problem to send a pdf as long as the arXiv system compiled it. I guess it's hard to maintain one of these systems when TeX is always changing.
Evan Patterson (Jun 30 2020 at 20:46):The system shows a countdown when compiling a paper, starting at what appears to be a random number of seconds (it's not the same each time). When the counter reaches zero, it's just keeps counting down into the negative numbers. Good stuff.
John Baez (Jun 30 2020 at 20:49):You can tell this journal is run by theoretical computer scientists instead of actual computer scientists. :upside_down:
Georgios Bakirtzis (Jun 30 2020 at 21:06):I thought about making the same joke earlier but then I remembered the vast majority of you are mathematicians :P
John Baez (Jun 30 2020 at 21:24):Mathematicians are not hurt by jokes making fun of theoretical computer scientists. We consider ourselves a completely different species.
Georgios Bakirtzis (Jun 30 2020 at 21:31):Yeah I guess my point is that TAC is not even indexed by google scholar and that is a technical issue, not really sure if that falls under "mathematicians making terrible submission systems" though
Brendan Fong (Jun 30 2020 at 23:14):Giorgos Bakirtzis said:
Yeah I guess my point is that TAC is not even indexed by google scholar and that is a technical issue, not really sure if that falls under "mathematicians making terrible submission systems" though
Compositionality (https://compositionality-journal.org) is not indexed either, because I'm a mathematician and it takes me ages to figure out how to sort out such technical issues. I'd appreciate any help or advice.
Cole Comfort (Jun 30 2020 at 23:32):Brendan Fong said:
Giorgos Bakirtzis said:
Yeah I guess my point is that TAC is not even indexed by google scholar and that is a technical issue, not really sure if that falls under "mathematicians making terrible submission systems" though
Compositionality (https://compositionality-journal.org) is not indexed either, because I'm a mathematician and it takes me ages to figure out how to sort out such technical issues. I'd appreciate any help or advice.
Doesn't google crawl every website linked by an indexed website by default, so that you have to make an effort for your website not to be indexed by it?
Nathanael Arkor (Jun 30 2020 at 23:36):@Brendan Fong: there seem to be detailed guidelines from Google for academic publishers on making your website accessible to Google Scholar indexing here: https://scholar.google.co.uk/intl/en/scholar/inclusion.html.
Georgios Bakirtzis (Jul 01 2020 at 00:27):Yeah basically you have to implement the Open Journal Systems by PKP. I could help with this but right now I am drowning with finishing my PhD. If nobody can do it/volunteers ping me at the end of summer and I can see what I can do.
Brendan Fong (Jul 01 2020 at 02:16):Giorgos Bakirtzis said:
Yeah basically you have to implement the Open Journal Systems by PKP. I could help with this but right now I am drowning with finishing my PhD. If nobody can do it/volunteers ping me at the end of summer and I can see what I can do.
I looked into that, but Open Journal Systems seemed a pretty full featured publishing platform, and we use O-3PO (https://github.com/quantum-journal/o3po) for most of that stuff. O-3PO has the advantage of being specialised for arXiv-overlay. Anyway, I may take you up on that if I haven't solved it by then. Thanks for the offer, and good luck writing up!
John Baez (Jul 01 2020 at 02:57):Do folks at TAC need to be involved to get TAC listed on Google Scholar?
John Baez (Jul 01 2020 at 02:58):If so, and someone here knows how to help, maybe they/we can contact Geoffrey Crutwell (the new editor of TAC) and get that done.
Georgios Bakirtzis (Jul 01 2020 at 04:26):@John Baez They certainly would.
@Brendan Fong Feel free to ping me then but I will caution that the problem with overlays is often that the arxiv version gets picked up but the actual article is not, which seems like it's not a big issue but it is (even if you just consider perception of the journal)
Paolo Perrone (Jul 01 2020 at 15:35):Ok, I think I should try to move everything to the other stream, since all the email announcements, etc. all point to the other stream. Let me see if I can do that without breaking everything.
David Michael Roberts (Jul 03 2020 at 11:02):I hope not. I've tried to push for modernisation in various ways, with no movement in years.
David Michael Roberts (Jul 03 2020 at 11:03):Oh, I just saw Giorgos' reply ...
Jules Hedges (Jul 03 2020 at 12:11):It's too late to change but I'm going to point out that Youtube is not a safe place to hold academic conferences. Women In Logic 2020 was targeted by a creative new type of event bombing where lots of people coordinated to complain about the stream and it was taken offline: https://twitter.com/valeriadepaiva/status/1278039496995385345
A great Women in Logic workshop finished! I am wondering what caused so much offense: was it the Belnap 4-lattice, the Kleene algebras or the nominal type theory that made YouTube take down the streaming of our workshop? they say someone complained & they took it dow. Amazing!
- Valeria dePaiva (@valeriadepaiva) Paolo Perrone (Jul 03 2020 at 13:49):I'm sorry for what happened to Valeria!
We have some backup solutions, which we hopefully will not have to use.
Aleks Kissinger (Jul 03 2020 at 14:13):For QPL 2020, we had lots of trouble streaming from Zoom. Apparently youtube AI can mistake Zoom-watermarked stuff for streaming of copyrighted content. Presumably because many people have been using Zoom to do this. That's why we ended up using Cisco in the end
Paolo Perrone (Jul 03 2020 at 14:25):Aleks Kissinger said:
For QPL 2020, we had lots of trouble streaming from Zoom. Apparently youtube AI can mistake Zoom-watermarked stuff for streaming of copyrighted content. Presumably because many people have been using Zoom to do this. That's why we ended up using Cisco in the end
Yep. We have a backup solution for this too, which again we will hopefully not have to use.
(By the way I hope they really fix this if they haven't already: it makes a Zoom feature basically unavailable - or at least unreliable.)
David Michael Roberts (Jul 04 2020 at 09:52):I have noticed that Google is promoting their video chat service in gmail more heavily, now...
Valeria de Paiva (Jul 04 2020 at 23:20):Giorgos Bakirtzis said:
Yeah I guess my point is that TAC is not even indexed by google scholar and that is a technical issue, not really sure if that falls under "mathematicians making terrible submission systems" though
do you know more about this technical issue? what can you tell me?
thanks!
Geoff Cruttwell (Jul 04 2020 at 23:29):Brendan Fong said:
Giorgos Bakirtzis said:
Yeah I guess my point is that TAC is not even indexed by google scholar and that is a technical issue, not really sure if that falls under "mathematicians making terrible submission systems" though
Compositionality (https://compositionality-journal.org) is not indexed either, because I'm a mathematician and it takes me ages to figure out how to sort out such technical issues. I'd appreciate any help or advice.
Hi all -
As far as I can tell, TAC (and Compositionality) articles are being indexed on Google Scholar - unfortunately, they're just slightly hidden by the Google scholar UI. If you search for most any article on TAC or Compositionality on Google scholar, the main hit will be the corresponding arXiv version, but if you then click on "All [n] versions", you'll see a list of other links, including the TAC or Compositionality one.
If you search for something on TAC which doesn't have an arXiv version (eg., search for the recent TAC article "Cubical model categories and quasi-categories"), then the TAC link does appear right away. (I think all the Compositionality articles so far have corresponding arXiv versions, so it isn't possible to find a similar example there, as the arXiv link always seems to take precedence).
So, as far as I can see, these articles are being indexed, they're just slightly hidden by the way Google scholar is setup. I don't really know what to do about this - I think many other journal links suffer a similar fate on Google scholar (I guess because Google ranks arxiv links more highly). Maybe I'll see if I can contact Google directly, though, to see if anything can be done (though I have my doubts they'll do much, as I'm sure they like keeping the eminence of their search algorithm).
Georgios Bakirtzis (Jul 05 2020 at 15:11):Hi Valeria and Geoff, the problem really rests that TAC and Compositionality are not "read" as Journals by Google. You say correctly that it picks up the PDF but that's in the same way as if I uploaded them into my website and it just picked it up because it has a title and a name. My pointing out comes from my personal frustration with trying to find where 'Categories in Control' was published which was much harder than it should have been. If TAC implements this https://scholar.google.co.uk/intl/en/scholar/inclusion.html it should be considered a proper journal by Google. This is kind of silly (who cares what google thinks) but the current status quo in academic publishing and literature search requires a more serious effort in these regards.
John Baez (Jul 05 2020 at 19:16):Giorgos Bakirtzis said:
My pointing out comes from my personal frustration with trying to find where 'Categories in Control' was published which was much harder than it should have been.
By the way, I list the publication data for all my papers on my website and (probably more usefully) on the arXiv. We should all do this. But of course this sort of individual initiative is no substitute for journals getting themselves officially noticed by Google Scholar.
Geoff Cruttwell (Jul 05 2020 at 19:45):Thanks for this Giorgos. I'm still a bit puzzled, though - how can one tell that Google doesn't consider TAC (or Compositionality), a "proper journal"?
I ask because as far as I can see, TAC (and Compositionality, and Higher Strucures, and the Electronic Journal of Combinatorics, and a number of other small independent journals I looked up) do meet the guidelines you link to on https://scholar.google.co.uk/intl/en/scholar/inclusion.html. Most do this via meta tags, but TAC meets the guidelines described on https://scholar.google.co.uk/intl/en/scholar/inclusion.html#indexing for "Indexing of content without the meta tags". In all cases, though, the result seems the same: their articles appear on Google scholar, but rarely as the first hit - instead, almost always after the relevant arXiv versions.
Conversely, journals hosted at large sites like sciencedirect.com or ams.org seem to get their articles linked first on a google search - but I suspect that's because of the size of the site they are on, rather than anything technically different they are doing. For example, I've tried looking through the .html sources of an article on sciencedirect.com (eg., view-source:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001870819305122) vs. an article on Compositionality (eg., view-source:https://compositionality-journal.org/papers/compositionality-1-4/) and both seem to have the same sort of meta data that google scholar looks at; however, the one at sciencedirect is listed first in a search while the one at Compositionality is not. Do you know of anything technically different these sites are doing?
Georgios Bakirtzis (Jul 05 2020 at 21:02):Hi Geoff we are reaching to my level of understanding of how these aggregation systems work. I would suggest contacting them in reference to TAC and Compositionality and asking them why and how you can fix that they show under "All n versions" but do not overtake the arxiv version on the search results. Please share if they respond back. I would do it but it says someone related to the website should do it in the guidelines.
Antonin Delpeuch (Jul 05 2020 at 21:25):@Geoff Cruttwell Google Scholar has behind-the-schenes agreements with many publishers to index their content, so it is really hard to interpret the ordering you see as a user in terms of measurable differences in presentation… The best thing to do in my opinion is to just add the meta tags they recommend, which should be relatively easy (and will benefit many other systems, as these tags are pretty much standard).
Geoff Cruttwell (Jul 06 2020 at 10:21):Giorgos Bakirtzis said:
Hi Geoff we are reaching to my level of understanding of how these aggregation systems work. I would suggest contacting them in reference to TAC and Compositionality and asking them why and how you can fix that they show under "All n versions" but do not overtake the arxiv version on the search results. Please share if they respond back. I would do it but it says someone related to the website should do it in the guidelines.
Yes, I agree that contacting them directly is probably the next best thing to do. @Brendan Fong, would you be interested in writing a joint email to Google on this? It might help to have a couple journals contact them initially, then see if we can rope in others later. As I mentioned above, from a quick look around, it looks like this problem affects a wide variety of small independent journals, not just those in category theory.
Thanks for bringing this all to my attention! As John mentioned above, I only recently took over as managing editor for TAC, and am still learning some of the intricacies of the journal publishing world, so this kind of thing is very helpful.
Geoff Cruttwell (Jul 06 2020 at 10:29):Antonin Delpeuch said:
Geoff Cruttwell Google Scholar has behind-the-schenes agreements with many publishers to index their content, so it is really hard to interpret the ordering you see as a user in terms of measurable differences in presentation… The best thing to do in my opinion is to just add the meta tags they recommend, which should be relatively easy (and will benefit many other systems, as these tags are pretty much standard).
Ah, thanks, I didn't realize there might be more going on behind the scenes than just google's crawlers reading the .html. Do you have any more information on this?
On the subject of meta tags...yes, I'm thinking it won't hurt to add those to the TAC abstract pages - though, if the other small journals which do use them (like Compositionality) are any indication, their addition won't make a difference to where the TAC links appear on Google scholar. If it's helpful to other systems, though, that's not a bad thing.
Antonin Delpeuch (Jul 06 2020 at 12:37):About the bespoke agreements, you can get a glimpse of the sorts of things they are up to in this page: https://scholar.google.com/intl/fr/scholar/publishers.html#otherpolicies (which I interpret as: publishers communicating the list of institutions which subscribe to their journals, so that users are sent to their platform by default for the articles from these journals and for users coming from IP ranges from these institutions).
Juan Ferrer Meleiro (Jul 06 2020 at 13:06):Hi. Are the discussions happening here on in the jitsi app?
Jules Hedges (Jul 06 2020 at 21:12):Could've sworn I took part in some seminar where the entire zoom chat (or maybe it was the youtube live chat) was dumped somewhere afterwards (probably this very zulip)
Paolo Perrone (Jul 06 2020 at 21:13):We are saving the zoom chat for now.
Brendan Fong (Jul 06 2020 at 22:07):Geoff Cruttwell said:
Giorgos Bakirtzis said:
Hi Geoff we are reaching to my level of understanding of how these aggregation systems work. I would suggest contacting them in reference to TAC and Compositionality and asking them why and how you can fix that they show under "All n versions" but do not overtake the arxiv version on the search results. Please share if they respond back. I would do it but it says someone related to the website should do it in the guidelines.
Yes, I agree that contacting them directly is probably the next best thing to do. Brendan Fong, would you be interested in writing a joint email to Google on this? It might help to have a couple journals contact them initially, then see if we can rope in others later. As I mentioned above, from a quick look around, it looks like this problem affects a wide variety of small independent journals, not just those in category theory.
Thanks for bringing this all to my attention! As John mentioned above, I only recently took over as managing editor for TAC, and am still learning some of the intricacies of the journal publishing world, so this kind of thing is very helpful.
@Geoff Cruttwell Yes, collaborating on this would be great! Let me start by contacting the editors at https://quantum-journal.org, who have been extremely gracious in advising us at Compositionality on technical issues, and I notice have managed to sort out this (I think...). They might be more responsive than Google.
Regarding meta tags, it's on the to-do list to add them to the Compositionality website, but it's not done yet. I can also get that done in the next few days and we can see if they make a difference
Antonin Delpeuch (Jul 07 2020 at 10:28):@Brendan Fong you already have meta tags on the compositionality website! :) If you go to https://compositionality-journal.org/papers/compositionality-2-2/ for instance, you will find things like <meta name="citation_title" content="Assignments to sheaves of pseudometric spaces">, which is what Google Scholar relies on.
Georgios Bakirtzis (Jul 07 2020 at 17:50):Hi, it seems that all the papers from EPTCS have disappeared, when are they supposed to be on arXiv to get a persistent link?
Paolo Perrone (Jul 07 2020 at 17:50):People are reporting a problem with the cgi server: the papers there are currently unavailable. (Example: https://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~eptcs/Accepted/ACT2020/Papers/31/paper/main202007010401.pdf)
Georgios Bakirtzis (Jul 07 2020 at 17:52):Actually ALL OF eptcs is down
Georgios Bakirtzis (Jul 08 2020 at 00:55):EPTCS is back up
Paolo Perrone (Jul 08 2020 at 02:59):All of Tuesday's streams have been replaced by their videos.
Tomáš Jakl (Jul 08 2020 at 13:38):Technical issue: Current UTC Time is not shown anymore
Paolo Perrone (Jul 08 2020 at 14:37):Thanks for reporting, we'll look into that.
(Cannot reproduce.)
Joshua Meyers (Jul 08 2020 at 20:20):The zoom link for Jorge Soto-Andrade's poster wants you to login to the University of Chile, maybe he could supply another link?
Eduardo Ochs (Jul 08 2020 at 20:43):Jorge sent me this:
Eduardo Ochs (Jul 08 2020 at 20:43):Hola, Now we are in the poster session The link in the spreadsheet was incomplete, the right link is in our page
categoricalouroboros.wordpress.com
in any case the link is
https://uchile.zoom.us/j/81843680903?pwd=aytRaHJtRGlHeXdNajBIWGhLbk13Zz09
sorry about that...
Aleks Kissinger (Jul 09 2020 at 17:06):it looks like we were Zoom-bombed...
Stelios Tsampas (Jul 09 2020 at 17:07):I like how they brag for "hacking" an open zoom meeting :shrug:
Fabrizio Genovese (Jul 09 2020 at 17:07):It was funny tho
Stelios Tsampas (Jul 09 2020 at 17:08):I left when i saw the old lady, I can only imagine what happened afterwards...
Fabrizio Genovese (Jul 09 2020 at 17:08):I didn't se any video feed luckily
Fabrizio Genovese (Jul 09 2020 at 17:08):Just heard the reggaeton noise xD
Aleks Kissinger (Jul 09 2020 at 17:09):it's not always that funny. hopefully this was a relatively mild one. in any case, how shall we proceed w business meeting etc?
Jules Hedges (Jul 09 2020 at 17:09):Let's say it could have been much worse
Aleks Kissinger (Jul 09 2020 at 17:10):re-starting at same location is likely to just be bombed again
Cole Comfort (Jul 09 2020 at 17:12):The real question is if the zulip has already been infiltrated, because it would suck if it isn't safe to distribute a new zoom link on here.
Fabrizio Genovese (Jul 09 2020 at 17:13):I don't think so, honestly
Oliver Shetler (Jul 09 2020 at 17:13):Aleks Kissinger said:
re-starting at same location is likely to just be bombed again
Maybe add a password? Hopefully it's not a member of this community. If it is, waiting rooms can also give control to the owner to filter people.
Stelios Tsampas (Jul 09 2020 at 17:13):Could be the public ACT website then, or some other source.
Stelios Tsampas (Jul 09 2020 at 17:14):But I would go ahead and try a pass-protected zoom meeting here, and if it gets bombed again... we know :P.
Fabrizio Genovese (Jul 09 2020 at 17:14):Yup
Aleks Kissinger (Jul 09 2020 at 17:14):yeah, i expect its from a public source or random-dialling
Fabrizio Genovese (Jul 09 2020 at 17:14):Random dialing could be it, but it's probably automated in some way
Jules Hedges (Jul 09 2020 at 17:14):I mean it's not like there's much other entertainment in corona times
Cole Comfort (Jul 09 2020 at 17:15):If zulip is actually compromised (which it probably isn't), then the moderators could just boot everyone who isn't using their real names and hope that no one is impersonating anyone else
Fabrizio Genovese (Jul 09 2020 at 17:15):We are over 1K ppl here now
Jules Hedges (Jul 09 2020 at 17:15):"compromised" after I shared the initial invite link to like 10k people
Cole Comfort (Jul 09 2020 at 17:15):Was the zoom link on the website?
Fabrizio Genovese (Jul 09 2020 at 17:15):that would take a while xD
Jules Hedges (Jul 09 2020 at 17:16):Cole Comfort said:
Was the zoom link on the website?
yes
Jules Hedges (Jul 09 2020 at 17:16):Most likely gonna need a new room for the session later too
Jules Hedges (Jul 09 2020 at 17:17):Much better it happens now than during one of the "real" sessions
Cole Comfort (Jul 09 2020 at 17:17):It would be nice if there were a system like the arxiv where someone has to vouch for you or you have to sign up with a university email, because I can see similar things happening to the zulip in the future
Fabrizio Genovese (Jul 09 2020 at 17:17):Trust me, if those people are here, we'll see them soon
John Baez (Jul 09 2020 at 17:17):We are now waiting for a new Zoom link for the business meeting. That link will be posted somewhere on Zulip.... if not here, maybe someone can repost it here.
John Baez (Jul 09 2020 at 17:18):Here it is:
https://mit.zoom.us/j/96756493147?pwd=aGVvU0dyOUhzbHJHalZWemgwWUpLUT09
Francisco Rios (Jul 09 2020 at 17:20):Fabrizio Genovese said:
Just heard the reggaeton noise xD
Lucky you!
Anna Matsui (Jul 09 2020 at 20:02):I'm sorry, where can I find the current meeting's link?
Brendan Fong (Jul 09 2020 at 20:03):https://mit.zoom.us/j/7488874897
Brendan Fong (Jul 09 2020 at 20:04):(sorry, we had to switch due to some zoom bombing issues. the website is updated, and will have the correct link for all future sessions; if it's not working, it might help to empty the cache/cookies/etc or use a private browsing window)