291–300 of 305 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This response tactic is tedious every time it comes up. "Tweets r 2 short" is never a valid complaint unless the limit is below 16 characters?
This is a non argument. Dismissing an argument out of hand as invalid because you say so adds nothing to the discussion. Feel free to expand that to an actual argument
Not exactly a non argument.
I've begun wondering if there's a market for recreating original technologies that have evolved beyond their original intent. For example, a new site that allowed you to broadcast up to 140 character messages.
I keep joking to people that I want to start rotatedfloralheartbullet.com (.com), a social network where you're only allowed one character, but you have the whole unicode space to choose from.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The length of your entire message: 285 chars Length of " You can't express complex thought without multi-tweeting ": 56 chars (took " literally " out, because that's incorrect).
Yes, thank you for the char-counting. I'm aware that my comment was not the height of profundity, nor was it particularly long. However, I do occasionally post more interesting things, and some of them need to be longer, because they discuss a complex issue or cite many facts. My comment was not intended to, in itself, justify the need for a longer Tweet length.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Short equations don't express complex thoughts. They express the short result of complex proofs, which are themselves essentially definitions. Math is a process of describing reality using definitions built on definitions. The analogy to communicating social, political, or creative thoughts is ridiculous. If you want to prove me wrong, show me a complex thought expressed in 140 characters. Again, I agree that complex…
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
That thought is pseudo-profound, not complex. In this context, "sound" is human-audible air vibration. One waving hand doesn't make any.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One thing I've wanted to see tried with Twitter is the idea that you have your typical stream of tweets (vertical), but that any tweet can have depth (by swiping horizontally). Your "my thoughts" example would indicate "1/8" automatically, updating as it was created. Means that someone can read as usual, or delve for the full series of tweets. They could provide an indication to the writer of what percentage of peopl…
Ugh. Marc Andreesen is the worst with this. I had to stop following him. Twitter is the wrong platform if you want to smear 1500 characters worth of information across multiple tweets.
Vivek Wadhwa, on the other hand... his rants were a mess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The decentralized twitter idea is great! Better privacy and interconnectivity is even better!
I don't get it. Twitter is a one to many broadcast channel. Its point is to be public. Privacy doesnt factor in. I think you could make a fake email, but twitter serves as a public channel so if you want privacy and twitter you are sort of asking for an sms message?
Twitter can track you across third-party sites using its widgets, and it also knows your subscribing/reading behavior.
A decentralized system could be self-hosted and only pull in data through RSS, keeping you as anonymous as the IP address that you use. You'd only give up anonymity by replying to posts.
Other commenters seem to be missing a critical point here: tweets continue to have a 140 character display with some sort of "read more" that you click to see the rest. To me, that actually sounds pretty great. One thing that's nice about Twitter is that it's fairly skimmable. All of those "1/ Some thought", "2/ some thought continued" threads damage that. Combining them into a "My thoughts on... read more" tweet wou…
I can't believe that there are so many backers of the old limit! Don't you guys hate that you have to always compromise on punctuation, select shorter (but less precise) synonyms, and other just to fit into the story that Twitter was trying to push all this time, but which wasn't the reality (of people using Twitter via SMS)? Okay, now, Twitter goes to another extreme - from too short, to too long. I'm fine with shor…
I'm a backer of the 140-char limit because I read Twitter but don't post on it. Concision is good for readers at the expense of posters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope! http://goodmath.scientopia.org/2014/01/17/bad-math-from-the-...
Incorrect, there is actually some well-established mathematics dealing with divergent series as summing to finite values via analytic continuation. These results have to be treated with care, because they are inconsistent under certain algebraic manipulations, but the techniques are "real" enough that their results are used in particle physics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regularization_(physics)
Even mathematicians working with Cesàro sums surround such statements with "this holds only if we interpret the infinite sum defining Z to be the Cesàro sum..." [0]
Precisely none of the times I've heard the "1+2+3+4...=-1/12" bullshit has the person stating it prefaced their statement with "this holds only if we interpret the infinite sum defining Z to be the Cesàro sum..."
If you say that "1+2+3+4...=-1/12" without stating your prior assumptions, you suddenly allow anyone to make any assumption whatsoever, no matter how obscure it is. In your imaginary world, someone could walk into a store and claim that "this 95 cent pack of gum is free" because they just made the unstated assumption that all non-integers do not exist, and seconds later they could return it for a full refund of $0.95 after making the unstated assumption that in fact the rational numbers do exist. Numbers, and in fact the entire system of mathematics fail to work at all once you allow arbitrary, unstated assumptions no matter their obscurity. And in fact, the assumption that non-integer numbers do not exist is made far, far more frequently than the assumption that the infinite sum defining the sequence is the Cesàro sum.
The only difference is that assuming the non-integer numbers do not exist is a defensible assumption in many, many scenarios... but Cesàro summations are only invoked about twelve times a year, in pure math or advanced physics papers.
[0] Madras, Neal. "A Note on Diffusion State Distance." arXiv preprint arXiv:1502.07315 (2015).