What else is there? Is there an equivalent for CS research?
https://paperkast.com/
For papers from all disciplines
HN-like math research discussion for Ph.D.s
21–30 of 122 posts
Re: HN-like math research discussion for Ph.D.s
#22Search is hidden behind registration wall AND I was not allowed to register (without affiliation). You should open search or registration.
Re: HN-like math research discussion for Ph.D.s
#23Search is hidden behind registration wall AND I was not allowed to register (without affiliation). You should open search or registration.
Agree on search, it is now open for non users. Affiliation is to avoid content dilution. Any alternative ideas are welcome (and as you can see with search, implemented)
Re: HN-like math research discussion for Ph.D.s
#24This feels a bit overly specialised, and the average article is hard. I’m sure a maths researcher can handle it and all but it does seem rather taxing. I think for something like HN to be broadly interesting it needs volume and variety, because people’s interests are a long tail phenomena. I imagine that is probably true for maths too.
> I’m sure a maths researcher can handle it
No, not at all. Each maths researcher will understand (and care about) only a fraction of these. Maths research (like most subjects) is broken into highly specialised subfields, and experts in one often cannot readily understand research in others.
New research papers are the cutting edge of the field, pushing out the boundary between known maths and unknown maths, and this boundary is huge. Things there are understood by very few people, at first just those who developed them, and the prerequisites for understanding any individual area of new maths are substantial. Known maths is also huge, far too big for any one person to understand it all.
Source: have maths PhD.
Re: HN-like math research discussion for Ph.D.s
#25This feels a bit overly specialised, and the average article is hard. I’m sure a maths researcher can handle it and all but it does seem rather taxing. I think for something like HN to be broadly interesting it needs volume and variety, because people’s interests are a long tail phenomena. I imagine that is probably true for maths too.
> I’m sure a maths researcher can handle it No, not at all. Each maths researcher will understand (and care about) only a fraction of these. Maths research (like most subjects) is broken into highly specialised subfields, and experts in one often cannot readily understand research in others. New research papers are the cutting edge of the field, pushing out the boundary between known maths and unknown maths, and this…
Indeed, that's why you can filter by category (e.g. math.NT for number theory). You can access the category by clicking on it at the end of each submission title
Re: HN-like math research discussion for Ph.D.s
#26Search is hidden behind registration wall AND I was not allowed to register (without affiliation). You should open search or registration.
Agree on search, it is now open for non users. Affiliation is to avoid content dilution. Any alternative ideas are welcome (and as you can see with search, implemented)
Great, thank you.
Re: HN-like math research discussion for Ph.D.s
#27Re: HN-like math research discussion for Ph.D.s
#28This feels a bit overly specialised, and the average article is hard. I’m sure a maths researcher can handle it and all but it does seem rather taxing. I think for something like HN to be broadly interesting it needs volume and variety, because people’s interests are a long tail phenomena. I imagine that is probably true for maths too.
You sound like you’re just not the target audience. That doesn’t make it bad. I personally welcome more specialized news aggregator sites. HN is too diluted and a bit of a fad-following monoculture. This kind of site looks refreshing.
Re: HN-like math research discussion for Ph.D.s
#29This feels a bit overly specialised, and the average article is hard. I’m sure a maths researcher can handle it and all but it does seem rather taxing. I think for something like HN to be broadly interesting it needs volume and variety, because people’s interests are a long tail phenomena. I imagine that is probably true for maths too.
> I’m sure a maths researcher can handle it No, not at all. Each maths researcher will understand (and care about) only a fraction of these. Maths research (like most subjects) is broken into highly specialised subfields, and experts in one often cannot readily understand research in others. New research papers are the cutting edge of the field, pushing out the boundary between known maths and unknown maths, and this…
Mathematics has a problem that also crops up on the fringes of programming; if a genius creates something at the limits of their understanding it is typically very hard to follow.
Academics as a whole doesn't really tackle the issue of taking knowledge and bedding it down into digestible form. Individually a lot of people do great work, but as a body they don't seem to see as that as their role. So far the solution is to throw clever people at academic papers and assume they will sort out something comprehensible as they go.
It always struck me as a very hard, very high-value problem. How do we measure ease-of-learning in a systemic way? Can we cheaply and reliably rate one explanation of a topic as superior to another of the same material?
Re: HN-like math research discussion for Ph.D.s
#30Search is hidden behind registration wall AND I was not allowed to register (without affiliation). You should open search or registration.
Agree on search, it is now open for non users. Affiliation is to avoid content dilution. Any alternative ideas are welcome (and as you can see with search, implemented)
Idea: die in a fire.
Really, go f yourself with your hardcore authoritarian censorship right from the beginning.
HN is bad enough (and I bet you a month's salary they'll obliterate my post) but at least they allow SOME level of free expression.
You on the other hand represent the most disgusting essence of human wickedness disguised as elitism.