181–190 of 341 posts
From the title this seems to be a violation of HN guidelines. "Please don't comment on whether someone read an article."
The title is the verbatim title of the linked article and the article is about the topic of people not reading papers when discussing them. I don't see how you'd come to the conclusion it's an inappropriate title.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like the idea, but how is that different from a personal website/blog with private access?
Because the average joe won't know how to set up a private personal website / blog & many of us have friends outside to tech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wish the addendum to that rule was “because we will just delete their post anyway.” The lowest value contributions on HN are inevitably those that use a headline to air personal grievances vaguely related to the subject of the post (“Apple releases new cure for diabetes”, top comment: “Let me tell you why I hate the touchbar.”) the second lowest are those that clearly read the headline and ran with it, without read…
Hey, can I tell you about how Firefox uses too much of my battery and is made by Mozilla Foundation who I will never donate to in a million years and why the person who gave me my last whiteboard interview probably clubs seals? Oh, you're telling me the article was about performance improvements in IonMonkey and how in-person interviews overwhelmingly fail to pick African American applicants? Drives me mad. Any Hacke…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But isn't that like 'forcing' the readers to the full length of the article? It's fine if the content is very compelling. I think it has to have something to do with reading online. It's really challenging to get readers glued to the page while traditionally physical books and magz have an easier environment (less distractions).
Once upon a time there was the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism)
But at least someone made some money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alas, this time you haven’t read far enough! The author, on page four of the comments: https://arstechnica.com/science/2011/04/guns-in-the-home-lot... > yak8998 wrote: >> Haha, bravo Mr. Timmer. If IE search is working right, then apparently I am the first. I think its well over 90%... >> "bananas" > That was added after publication, so the first few dozen commenters wouldn't have seen it. Idea credit goes to our edi…
But isn't that like 'forcing' the readers to the full length of the article? It's fine if the content is very compelling. I think it has to have something to do with reading online. It's really challenging to get readers glued to the page while traditionally physical books and magz have an easier environment (less distractions).
Recently there was a brouhaha on the Twitters about 2+2=5 that went viral and, unfortunately, political. The argument is that post-modernists are trying to tear down mathematics as a "white supremacist social construct" and trying to say that "2+2=5" is as valid an answer as "2+2=4". Which sounds pretty bad, so I looked into it. The original Tweet thread was a math nerd who jokingly, and not incorrectly, illustrated…
If you move away from modular arithmetic and the numbers 2 and 5 being in any way related to their standard meanings, you can of course redefine them to mean whatever you want (e.g. rotations of a cube or whatever) and then you can make 2+2=5 work. But I suspect no sane mathematician would do that, it would just be totally confusing.
It's possible there is some deeper structure out there in which you can reinterpret something like 2+2=5 to be actually useful, though But I doubt it.
So in a sense, it's true: You can construe a mathematical world where 2+2=5, but doing so reduces either the whole affair to a triviality (everything is equal to itself), or is just deliberately using confusing notation.
I think there's probably an interesting argument in here about how on the one hand languages and structures are man-made and arbitrary (nobody decreed that 2 should be the symbol denoting the concept of two-ness), and yet on the other hand, how once you fix meanings and rules, the mathematics is fixed and not up for debate, and also how just changing standard meanings without good reason would annoy even mathematicians.
Recently there was a brouhaha on the Twitters about 2+2=5 that went viral and, unfortunately, political. The argument is that post-modernists are trying to tear down mathematics as a "white supremacist social construct" and trying to say that "2+2=5" is as valid an answer as "2+2=4". Which sounds pretty bad, so I looked into it. The original Tweet thread was a math nerd who jokingly, and not incorrectly, illustrated…
It amplifies meaningless shit into the stratosphere with its trending algorithms, aided by the fact that the largest userbase on twitter seems to be political extremists of both left & right. It's created an environment where making a comment like "mathematics is merely a white supremacist social construct" is now somehow acceptable to the left.
The platform literally exists to make things look like they're a bigger deal worldwide than they really are. It's dangerous.
I quit twitter a while back - when I was on the platform, all my news consumption revolved around it. I was deeply concerned about the state of the UK and the US because of the constant stream of political propaganda from both sides.
Since I quit my brain feels like it's been completely freed of political dogma and I'm in a significantly better mood generally. I've not missed the trending page, that's for certain.
The biggest issue is the loss of academic freedom you alluded too, mainly & ironically being pushed heavily by the 'Twitter Left'. Twitter is like a heavily left leaning version of /pol/ these days.
I'd like to be clear that I would consider myself on 'the left', to be a progressive person & I am absolutely aware that the extremist cesspit that is twitter does not represent the genuine left, much as it doesn't represent genuine moderates or genuine conservatives.
It's the most extreme weaponized propaganda & rent-a-mob tool thats ever existed in human history.
From the title this seems to be a violation of HN guidelines. "Please don't comment on whether someone read an article."
I wish the addendum to that rule was “because we will just delete their post anyway.” The lowest value contributions on HN are inevitably those that use a headline to air personal grievances vaguely related to the subject of the post (“Apple releases new cure for diabetes”, top comment: “Let me tell you why I hate the touchbar.”) the second lowest are those that clearly read the headline and ran with it, without read…
1) Please read the article before you comment.
2) If you haven't read the article, please refrain from commenting.
It wouldn't accomplish much, but it will at least prioritize engagement over politeness, as the current rule does. And yes, both of those are the same thing but I feel it's worth mentioning twice.
Some years ago, Ars Technica ran a story on guns. https://arstechnica.com/science/2011/04/guns-in-the-home-lot... About halfway through a one-page article was this quote. "If you have read this far, please mention Bananas in your comment below. We're pretty sure 90% of the respondants to this story won't even read it first." Sure enough, there were about 3 pages of comments before someone mentioned bananas. Read the…
I did a similar thing with recruiting ads, I added a line of "If you are interested in this role, please reach out to me starting with 'Heyyyyyy I am XXX', thanks!" in the middle of the JD. And I simply ignore 99% of the reach out because they didn't start with that line. It's just like the brown M&m thing Van Halen did. Works way better than I expected.
I don't think this idea of yours is as clever as you imagine it to be