“Stress” is so abused and nebulous that it’s impossible to define. Nearly every condition is worsened by “stress” but there’s no way to measure it. And there’s no conclusive way to manage stress either. Medication, psychotropics, self medication, meditation. Nearly all of those are more broadly abused and yet stress “worsens”.
One person may run an intense soup kitchen 15 hours a day and feel little stress, and another can sit at a computer for 9 hours sending pointless emails and feel tremendous stress.
Fortunately, as you mention in your last sentence, stress is introspectable.
How exactly stress corresponds to biomarkers doesn’t matter if your desire is to lower it.
The issue is that many of us don’t pay attention to how we keep our body & mind throughout the day, or do so on a very superficial level. So strain on the body can accumulate for a long time.
“Stress management” is a lifetime skill. It doesn’t come in bulletpoints, it’s as broad as “living happily”.
Edit: That said, this can make the advice “be less stressed” a bit vacuous.
But people do get scared when random health issues flare up and become more conscious of how they deal with stress in life.
So it’s not bad to keep reminding people either :)
True that “sleep better, eat better, exercise” is generic advice ignoring constraints. Like telling someone with insomnia, three kids, and a night shift to “sleep better” or telling someone broke to “have more money.”
But being difficult to put into action doesn’t mean the advice is wrong. Sleep deprivation measurably increases cortisol and inflammatory markers. Exercise measurably reduces them. These actions have quantifiable sometimes immediate effects regardless of how we define stress.
Stories of "asian face" actresses with eyes taped back, prominent pieces of anti asian grafitti on walls and drawn in bathrooms are common tropes in asian communities, etc.
The examples of plagiarism are examples of common story arcs, with an educated asian female twist, and use of examples that multiple writers in a shared literary pool would have all been exposed to; eg: it could be argued that they all drew from a similar well rather thn some were original and others copied.
There's a shocked article: https://www.halfmystic.com/blog/you-are-believed that may indeed be looking at more evidence than was cited in the google docs link above which would explain the shock and the dismissal of R.W. as a plagiarist.
The evidence in the link amounts to what is common with many pools of proto writers though, lots of similar passages, some of which have been copied and morphed from others. It's literally how writers evolve and become better.
I'm on the fence here, to be honest, I looked at what is cited as evidence and I see similar stories from people with similar backgrounds sharing common social media feeds.
One of her publishers pulled her book from print, publicly accused her of plagiarism, and asked other publishers to denounce her for plagiarism.
That’s pretty damning evidence. If a publisher was on the fence they might pull her books quietly, but they wouldn’t make such a public attack without very good evidence that they thought would hold up in court. There was no equivocation at all.
The evidence, at least the evidence that I found cited as evidence, appears less damning.
Perhaps there is more damning evidence.
What I found was on the order of the degree of cross copying and similar themes, etc. found in many pools of young writers going back through literary history.
Rona Wang, whom I've never previously heard of, clearly used similar passages from her peers in a literary group and was called out for it after receiving awards.
I would raise two questions, A) was this a truly significant degree of actual plagarism, and 2) did any of her peers in this group use passages from any of Tona's work ?
On the third hand, Kate Bush was a remarkable singer / song writer / performer. Almost utterly unique and completely unlike any contempory.
That's ... highly unusual.
The majority of writers, performers, singers, et al. emerge from pools that differ from their prior generations, but pools none the less that are filled with similarity.
The arc of careers of those that rise from such origins is really the defining part of many creators.
It is evidence because a strong condemnation raises the likelihood that the accusation is true.
It doesn’t prove anything, but it supports the theory that they have seen additional evidence.
After researching this a bit, it looks like someone from publisher says she admitted it to them. That certainly explains why they weren’t afraid to publicly condemn her.
Thanks, I looked at some of those examples. Several I saw were suspiciously similar, and I wonder how they got that way. Others didn't look suspicious to me.
I wonder whether the similar ones were the result of something innocent, like a shared writing prompt within the workshop both writers were in, or maybe from a group exercise of working on each others' drafts.
Or I suppose some could be the result of a questionable practice, of copying passages of someone else's work for "inspiration", and rewriting them. And maybe sometimes not rewriting a passage enough.
(Aside relevance to HN professions: In software development, we are starting to see many people do worse than copy&revise a passage plagiarism. Not even rewriting the text copy&pasted from an LLM, but simply putting our names on it internally, and company copyrights on it publicly. And the LLM is arguably just laundering open source code, albeit often with more obfuscation than a human copier would do.)
But for a lot of the examples of evidence of plagiarism in that document, I didn't immediately see why that passage was suspect. Fiction writing I've seen is heavily full of tropes and even idiomatic turns of phrase.
Also, many stories are formulaic, and readers know that and even seek it out. So the high-powered business woman goes back to her small town origins for the holidays, has second-chance romance with man in a henley shirt, and she decides to stay and open a bakery. Sprinkle with an assortment of standard subgenre trope details, and serve. You might do very original writing within that framework, but to someone who'd only ever seen two examples of that story, and didn't know the subgenre convention, it might look like one writer totally ripped off the other.
Instead of slapping Harry Potter in the middle of your book wholesale, imagine you lifted a few really good lines from Harry Potter, a few from Lord of the Rings, and more from a handful of other books.
Read the evidence document another poster linked for actual examples.
To me as a dumb reader, that would be fine, maybe the author could have mentioned that he likes these authors and takes them as inspirations. Also you can't really forbid books to never have references to pop culture. And at some level of famous-ness passages and ideas loose their exclusive tie to the original book and become part of the list of common cultural sayings.
Well plagiarism by definition means passing the work off as your own without crediting the author, so in that case it isn’t plagiarism.
References to pop culture are the same as lifting sentences from other books and pretending you wrote them.
> And at some level of famous-ness passages and ideas loose their exclusive tie to the original book and become part of the list of common cultural sayings
In the actual case being examined the copied references certainly hadn’t reached any such level of famousness.
Also there’s a difference between having a character tell another “not all those who wander are lost” as a clear reference to a famous quote from LOTR and copying multiple paragraph length deep cuts to pass off as your own work.
> Well plagiarism by definition means passing the work off as your own without crediting the author, so in that case it isn’t plagiarism.
Of course, but wrote 'could' and not 'should' for a reason, I won't expect it. A book isn't a paper and the general expectation is that the book will be interesting or fun to read and not that it is original. That means the general expectation is not that it is never a rehash of existing ideas. I think ever book including all the good ones is. A book that invents the world from scratch might be novel, but unlikely what people want to read.
> copying multiple paragraph length deep cuts to pass off as your own work.
If that is true, it sounds certainly fishy, but that is a case of violation of copyright and intellectual property and not of plagiarism.
> That means the general expectation is not that it is never a rehash of existing ideas.
There’s a different from rehashing existing ideas and copying multiple passages off as your own.
> If that is true, it sounds certainly fishy, but that is a case of violation of copyright and intellectual property and not of plagiarism.
What exactly do you think plagiarism is? Here’s one common definition:
“An instance of plagiarizing, especially a passage that is taken from the work of one person and reproduced in the work of another without attribution.”
> What exactly do you think plagiarism is? Here’s one common definition:
Both are about passing of something of your own. Plagiarism is about passing ideas of insights of as your own. It doesn't really matter, whether you copy it verbatim, present it in your own words or just use the concept. It does however matter how important that idea/concept/topic is in your work and the work you took it from without attribution, and whether that is novel or some generally available/common knowledge.
For violation of intellectual property it is basically the opposite. It doesn't matter, whether the idea or concept is fundamental for your work or the other work you took it from, but it does matter, whether it is a verbatim quote or only the same basic idea.
Intellectual property rights is something that is enforced by the legal system, while plagiarism is an issue of honor, that affects reputation and universities revoke titles for.
> There’s a different from rehashing existing ideas and copying multiple passages off as your own.
Yes and that's the difference between plagiarism and violating intellectual property/copyright.
But all this is arguing about semantics. I don't have the time to research whether the claims are true or not, and I honestly don't care. I have taken from the comments that it was only the case, that she rehashed ideas from other books, and I wanted to point out, that while this is a big deal for academic papers, it is not for books and basically expected. (Publishers might have different ideas, but that is not an issue of plagiarism.) If it is indeed the case that she copied other authors verbatim, then that is something illegal she can be sued for, but whether this is the case is for the legal system to be determined, not something I should do.
>I have taken from the comments that it was only the case, that she rehashed ideas from other books, and I wanted to point out, that while this is a big deal for academic papers, it is not for books and basically expected.
In addition to near verbatim quotes, she is also accused of copying stories beat for beat. That's much different than rehashing a few ideas from other works. It is not expected and it is very much considered plagiarism by fiction writers.
As for the quotes she copied. That is likely both a copyright violation and plagiarism.
Plagiarism isn't just about ideas but about expressions of those ideas in the form of words.
Webster's definition:
"to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source"
"to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source"
Oxford learner's dictionary:
"to copy another person’s ideas, words or work and pretend that they are your own"
Copying verbatim or nearly verbatim lines from a work of fiction and passing them off as your own is both plagiarism and copyright violation.
So I won't defend what was done here, there doesn't seem much to argue.
> copying stories beat for beat. That's much different than rehashing a few ideas from other works. It is not expected and it is very much considered plagiarism by fiction writers.
Some operas are a greek play. There rehashes of the Faust, the Beggars Opera is a copy of a play from Shakespeare, there are modern versions of Pride and Prejustice, there are tons of stories that are a copy of the Westside Story, which is itself a copy of Romeo and Julia, which I thinks comes from an even older story. This often don't come with any attribution at all, although the listener is sometimes expected to know that the original exists. They change the settings, but the plot is basically the same. Do you consider all of that to be plagiarism? These would be all a reason to call it plagiarism when considering a paper, but for books nobody bats an eye. This is because authors don't sell abstract ideas or a plot, they sell concrete stories.
First, the stories you mentioned are very famous. The audience watching Oh Brother Where Art Thou is aware it’s an adaptation of the Odyssey. Therefore it’s not someone attempting to pass off work as their own.
The stories this authors copied were either unpublished manuscripts she got access to in writers groups or very obscure works that it’s unlikely her readers had read.
Second, the examples you gave were extremely transformative. Just look at the differences between Westside Story and Romeo and Juliette. It’s a musical for goodness sake. It subverts expectations by letting Maria live through it.
The writings at issue are short stories, so there’s less room for transformation in the first place. And there was clearly not even a strong attempt at transformation. The author even kept some of the same character names.
There was no attempt to subvert expectations largely because the audience had expectations, since they weren’t aware of the originals.
>change settings
She didn’t even do that.
> for books nobody bats an eye
If a popular book were revealed to be a beat for beat remake of an obscure novel with the same setting, similar dialogue, some of the same character names, and few significant transformative elements, you can bet your life there would be a scandal.
Like I wrote, I wanted to point a difference in attitude between academic and entertaining writing. I think I don't disagree with you in this specific case (now). You seem to have looked into the actual case, while I didn't.
Out of curiosity- there's a focus on local llm then talk about no GPU, only FPGA. Those feel- at odds. But maybe I'm out of the loop for how far local LLMs on custom hardware has come?
They're still at the compiler stage. LLM features and hardware seem far enough away that it's reasonable to wait to evaluate if that combination is actually practical.
That's unreasonably large. Depending on the content, PRs tend to get harder and harder to read with every line of code.
1k added lines is imo already pushing it.
9k and 63 files is astronomical and very difficult to review.
A proper review means being able to understand the system and what's being changed, how, and why in order to be able to judge if it was done properly and includes everything it should and nothing it shouldn't.
9k lines is just too much to be able to do this properly.
> Technically, no! If you take a look at arXiv’s policies for specific content types you’ll notice that review articles and position papers are not (and have never been) listed as part of the accepted content types.
https://www.bellard.org/tcc/
reply