151–160 of 205 posts
https://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall13/cos226/l...
tl;dr: Iterate through each value v and spawn a process that waits v seconds before writing itself as output.
Edit: Earliest HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2657277
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For what it's worth the increase in traffic from 2010 onward was largely mobile users, with desktop users staying around 50M, while total users grew to a peak of about 133m at the start of 2018.
Yeah, I still see people suggesting that phone-posters should be banned. I wonder what the site would be like if it had been implemented. I didn't know how large the numbers were though, that is nuts. Looking at the general quality of the site though, it makes sense.
With new users being added in at such a rapid pace it seems like it was impossible to on-board them in terms of generally accepted practice; a eternal summer echo of the "Eternal September" of the usenet days which involves many of the same complaints.
This tweet is misleadingly worded. The solution was not posted on 4chan, but rather by an anonymous user on a “wiki mainly devoted to anime” as the original tweet quoted by this tweet makes clear.
The original tweet is somewhat confused though too because the linked wiki is an archive/summary of a thread on /sci/ which is one of the 4chan message boards. It's copied there because of the ephemeral nature of posts on the actual boards so you can't provide a permanent link, thus linking to the next best source seems the best choice.
An "academically correct" solution (i.e., not to taint the prestige of a scholar who cites the solution) would be to cite a real, proxy scholar who checks the solution, but gives all credit to the anonymous 4chan user. Scientists often abhor citing from blogs, forums, and Wikipedia, as those publications "are not peer-reviewed by trustworthy professionals".
a) Tell others were to go if they want more context.
b) Give credit for where you got the idea or for doing the legwork of putting it together.
c) Allow auditing of the ultimate origin of a claim and e.g. identify whether one data point is getting repeated like it's two data points. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_cascade
It is a fun little event that something posted on 4chan is used in a research paper. But that nobody knows how it should be cited is just plain wrong. They should maybe contact their research library and get a introduction to citing. All citation styles I know of can handle web citations. Anonymous authors is nothing new either. And you have things like the internet archive or Webcite[0] to make sure the web document…
It's not that nobody knows how to cite it, it's that nobody wants to cite things from outside of academia, perhaps because it lowers their own perceived prestige. I have seen this in computational linguistics where people frequently don't cite their data sources, which often come from outside of the field or outside academia altogether. Instead they put a link to a webpage in a footnote, which does nothing for assign…
Unlikely. I can't speak for everybody, but I can speak for myself, and I would be extremely hesitant to cite a random webpage in a journal article for several reasons:
1) It can change. ArXiv has versioning, but even so, this is still a problem. You cite something, and months later you go back and find the thing you cited says something slightly different.
1b) It can disappear. Again, less of an issue for ArXiv, but a big problem for any other website. Linkrot is real.
2) There's probably a better source. Maybe in this example a 4chan thread is the original provenance of an idea, but 99 times out of 100, there's a better, original source for the idea.
3) There's no peer review. Peer-review is not a pre-requisite for publication, but if you don't have it, it just makes people more skeptical of your results.
4) It's perceived as lazy. This is closest to your point (i.e. prestige), but not the same. Like it or not, if you cite informal sources in a paper, people start to wonder about the rigor of everything else you do. It's an intangible, but when you're trying to get papers accepted, intangibles count.
Basically, citing a webpage is risky. You avoid it if you can.
It is a fun little event that something posted on 4chan is used in a research paper. But that nobody knows how it should be cited is just plain wrong. They should maybe contact their research library and get a introduction to citing. All citation styles I know of can handle web citations. Anonymous authors is nothing new either. And you have things like the internet archive or Webcite[0] to make sure the web document…
We cited a random persons blog in my masters thesis, supervisor didn't blink an eye (that person had the most clear and concise formulation of the problem we were trying to solve).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The comment you're replying to contains: > Someone this year made a bot that did it in about 5 minutes. It's also the case that it's plausible one can interrupt & resume the sequence (at the cost of 4 extra button presses per interruption).
Sure, but it's kind of silly. There are far, far simpler ways to get into a car than bringing a robot with you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I still see people suggesting that phone-posters should be banned. I wonder what the site would be like if it had been implemented. I didn't know how large the numbers were though, that is nuts. Looking at the general quality of the site though, it makes sense.
It seems like it would be a great case study for someone interested in social psychology or Social Norms Theory or something similar. I remember when I first came across the site 13 year old me being worried if I posted something too stupid people would trace my IP and hack me. With new users being added in at such a rapid pace it seems like it was impossible to on-board them in terms of generally accepted practice;…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean by hash? 4chan posts use an incrementing id per board, so if you put >>>/sci/3751197 you have a unique identifier for the post (sci being the board and 3751197 being the post number). For convenience you could link to an archive site as well, but they're known to die every few years.
Some boards like /pol/ have a user hash, unique per user-session, stable across posts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is directly addressed in the comment you're responding to. > "And you have things like the internet archive or Webcite[0] to make sure the web document doesn't disappear."
Does that even work on 4chan? On /b/ threads can vanish in less than an hour. There used to be specialized sites such as 4chanarchive to fill the gap, but last I checked most are dead.