171–180 of 209 posts
Hi, I created an account but could not login, for some reason. I'm on Brave and have some security settings on - maybe something related to that? Never had issues on other websites. On another note, the mobile browser version could be better - the rows exceed the width of the screen. But other than that, you've got something cool over here, I'll bookmark it :)
fixed mobile UI, also upgraded supabase, you should be able to sign up now
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're onto something! A retrospective history of science styled as an HN clone would be amazing, will any of you dare?
This is difficult. It should look more like a DAG than a tree, but we don't have a good UI for DAG comment threads yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is difficult. It should look more like a DAG than a tree, but we don't have a good UI for DAG comment threads yet.
Interesting idea ! That makes me think about a system where you can reply to multiple comments at once.
Sure, not many, if any, clients handle an arbitrary list of message id's there, but it's clear[3] that's what it's for.
[1]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc822#section-4.6.2
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of my colleagues either: - read arXiv (the algorithm there is pretty simple, but it's a feed of sorts), or - follow twitter accounts to learn about new results So, like it or not, a lot of people are getting their feed from algorithms.
I think you missed my point that the idea of a "feed" being something scholars need is not really clear. It is more that a feed is something that website developers know how to make
I'd consider twitter a feed, and one driven by a proprietary algorithm at that. I'm not sure if it's better or worse to have the interest of these academics guided by a company like twitter, but maybe having some other options is good.
I think the ideal future for science publication would be something like: - some database like arXiv for most all the results, obviously mirrored a few places - multiple frontends like this! - no more journals: replace journal review with an endorsement from a similar organization, on the arXiv (or similar) page Thanks for taking one of the required steps to making this possible!
The quality standard of peer review, especially within computer science, is declining. I've read lots of papers only to discover obvious method flaws or dishonest statistics. With a simple comment section, this would be trivial to filter out. And don't get me started on the price for publication and for readers that supposedly fund this "detailed peer review process" that misses so many obvious flaws. The peer review…
Journals have been publishing "responses" for ages, so there always has been a "comment section" of sorts. But it could be so much easier!
Personally I haven't really seen or been involved in a response. It would not surprise me if that tradition is dying because it's so much easier to comment somewhere on the internet where some people will see it. But of course without an official endorsement from the journal / preprint server / whatever, it's hard to know which forum you should direct your response to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're onto something! A retrospective history of science styled as an HN clone would be amazing, will any of you dare?
I'm intrigued - how would you envision the posts and comments working?
I have much more imagination than skills.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting idea ! That makes me think about a system where you can reply to multiple comments at once.
You mean like email and usenet's in-reply-to[1][2]? Sure, not many, if any, clients handle an arbitrary list of message id's there, but it's clear[3] that's what it's for. [1]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc822#section-4.6.2 [2]: https://cr.yp.to/immhf/thread.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5322#section-3.6.4
I'll search for examples of UI used for many in-reply-to, it seems interesting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm intrigued - how would you envision the posts and comments working?
Magically? Jokes apart, it'd be something like Pythagoras posts a link to his theory, with threads going until a paradigm change prompts another link and thread, and so on, and then Newton, and Max Planck... you know, implementation details. I have much more imagination than skills.
same!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm intrigued - how would you envision the posts and comments working?
Magically? Jokes apart, it'd be something like Pythagoras posts a link to his theory, with threads going until a paradigm change prompts another link and thread, and so on, and then Newton, and Max Planck... you know, implementation details. I have much more imagination than skills.