Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.1116 [SLACK_001330] · slack_pm:msg:11643

Recipients on this medium are inferred from channel membership, not per-message addressing.

I agree that we don't need the summary. The paper is already concise enough.

In context

A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.

2022-05-28 04:19 Robert F. Garry open

Shocking, but true.
2022-05-28 05:19 Robert F. Garry open

@Kristian Andersen et al - you might want to go over Worobey2022 one mo' time. It's very much getting there, but still I think the writing could be a bit crisper and punchier - too many words and complex sentences in a few cases. The "In sum" paragraph is [still] redundant IMO.
2022-05-28 05:20 Robert F. Garry open

great job on the R2R @Kristian Andersen
2022-05-28 05:20 Andrew Rambaut

I agree that we don't need the summary. The paper is already concise enough.
2022-05-28 05:23 Robert F. Garry open

Yeah - plus cutting "in sum" would have the virtue of getting closer to the 4000 word guidance.
2022-05-28 05:46 Andrew Rambaut open

I did a lot of trimming a while back to get us to 3750 words so we had a bit of space for additional stuff. But we are back up to 4335. Removing the In sum paragraph would get us to about 4135 so we should definitely remove it. I will see if I can get a few more trims to take us down to 4000
2022-05-28 06:31 Kristian G. Andersen open

I'll get on the paper once Mike's done with his passes. Yes, needs editing for clarity.