33550336

Why MAGA supporters are never genises?

As I read in the Wiki, "Researchers have criticized Elsevier for its high profit margins and copyright practices. The company had a reported profit before tax of £2.295 billion with an adjusted operating margin of 33.1% in 2023. Much of the research that Elsevier publishes is publicly funded; its high costs have led to accusations of rent-seeking, boycotts against them, and the rise of alternate avenues for publication and access, such as preprint servers and shadow libraries."

Are there other high-score but more ethical publishers? Is Springer Nature better in this sense? I mean the subscription publishing options, not a paid open-access.

Excuse me if the question in the title is a too big simplification, but I suppose the pattern exists.

Imagine this is a pic:

"I have seen some ultrafinitists go so far as to challenge the existence of 2^100 as a natural number, in the sense of there being a series of "points" of that length. There is the obvious "draw the line" objection, asking where in 2^1, 2^2, 2^3, … , 2^100 do we stop having "Platonistic reality"? Here this … is totally innocent, in that it can be easily be replaced by 100 items (names) separated by commas. I raised just this objection with the (extreme) ultrafinitist Yessenin-Volpin during a lecture of his. He asked me to be more specific. I then proceeded to start with 2^1 and asked him whether this is "real" or something to that effect. He virtually immediately said yes. Then I asked about 2^2, and he again said yes, but with a perceptible delay. Then 2^3, and yes, but with more delay. This continued for a couple of more times, till it was obvious how he was handling this objection. Sure, he was prepared to always answer yes, but he was going to take 2^100 times as long to answer yes to 2^100 then he would to answering 2^1. There is no way that I could get very far with this. "

— Harvey M. Friedman, "Philosophical Problems in Logic"