Extension usage examples:
Here's how our browser extension sees the article:
Format selector for 2006.09661
Source: arxiv.org
Article summary:
1. The article discusses a format selector for arXiv:2006.09661v1.
2. It explains that the source is delivered as a gzipped tar (.tar.gz) file, PDF file, or a gzipped TeX, DVI, PostScript or HTML (.gz, .dvi.gz, .ps.gz or .html.gz) file depending on submission format.
3. It encourages readers to report any problems to arXiv admins and provide details such as paper identifier and options selected when using arxiv.org.
Article analysis:
The article appears to be reliable in terms of providing information about the format selector for arXiv:2006.09661v1 and instructions on how to report any issues with it to the arXiv admins. However, there are some potential biases that should be noted in terms of its content and presentation of information. For example, the article does not explore counterarguments or present both sides equally; instead it focuses solely on providing information about the format selector and instructions for reporting issues with it to the arXiv admins without considering other perspectives or points of view that may exist regarding this topic. Additionally, there is no evidence provided for any claims made in the article nor is there any discussion of possible risks associated with using this format selector which could lead readers to believe that it is completely safe and secure when this may not necessarily be true in all cases. Furthermore, there is no mention of promotional content which could lead readers to believe that the article is unbiased when this may not necessarily be true either due to potential conflicts of interest between the author/publisher and those mentioned in the article (e.g., arXiv admins). In conclusion, while this article provides useful information about the format selector for arXiv:2006.09661v1 and instructions on how to report any issues with it to the arXiv admins, there are some potential biases that should be taken into consideration when evaluating its trustworthiness and reliability such as lack of exploration of counterarguments or presenting both sides equally, lack of evidence for claims made in the article, lack of discussion regarding possible risks associated with using this format selector, and lack of mention regarding promotional content which could lead readers astray if they are not aware of these potential biases beforehand.