On The Suitability of Differential Dataflow For Datalog Interpretation In Highly Dynamic Settings · HackerPapers discussions

On The Suitability of Differential Dataflow For Datalog Interpretation In Highly Dynamic Settings — mentioned by rebanevapustus

Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:18:53 GMT

I have zero compassion for ArXiv. Allow me to share a horror story: I was the victim of a pretty bizarre super in-your-face academic theft. Someone snooped a half-finished paper draft of mine off GitHub and...actually got it published in ArXiv and a "real" journal: https://forbetterscience.com/2023/10/30/stephensons-alternat... In spite of having a full commit log (with GitHub verified commits!!!) of both the code AND the paper, both ArXiv and the journal didn't seem to care or bother at all. I went all the way to contacting Stanford, the institution that the thief falsely pretended to be…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

On The Suitability of Differential Dataflow For Datalog Interpretation In Highly Dynamic Settings — mentioned by rebanevapustus

Sun, 29 Sep 2024 17:56:25 GMT

He managed to DMCA strike the corrected version of the paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.04214 We then contacted Stanford, and somehow got their legal team to message Arxiv telling them that Matthew is a fraudster. In spite (!!) of Arxiv removing his stolen version thanks to Stanford's email: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.14810 They refused to lift the obviously spurious DMCA claim on mine.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

On The Suitability of Differential Dataflow For Datalog Interpretation In Highly Dynamic Settings — mentioned by rebanevapustus

Sun, 29 Sep 2024 17:51:55 GMT

After almost a year, with an unsurmountable amount of open-source evidence and the thief having had every single paper he has ever written retracted for fraud!! the best the journal did is to add a notice: https://www.mdpi.com/2674-113X/2/3/20 Arxiv cared even less. They allowed the thief to DMCA strike me multiple times. He even managed to take down the real version of the paper by claiming that it was his: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.04214 > Did you end up publishing your work eventually No. When I tried to do so, I was actually rejected from a conference because their plagiarism detecting…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

On The Suitability of Differential Dataflow For Datalog Interpretation In Highly Dynamic Settings — mentioned by rebanevapustus

Fri, 22 Sep 2023 07:59:39 GMT

This article is making the rounds. There's a long thread on twitter about how it has been stolen from somebody else from my faculty, alongside with claims that the author has false affiliation with Stanford (confirmed by arXiv) 1. False affiliation proof(violated the author policy of arXiv): https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.14810 2. The actual article: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.04214 3. Citation 22 refers to the repository of somebody else: https://web.archive.org/web/20221207090646/https://github.co... which so happens to be the first author of the actual article 4. Twitter thread…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

On The Suitability of Differential Dataflow For Datalog Interpretation In Highly Dynamic Settings — HN submission

Wed, 09 Aug 2023 17:26:41 GMT

A Differential Datalog Interpreter

1 point; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.