@dmckee I agree it's shitty that economics limit the human experience. You probably won't ever have your own private jet even if you knew how to construct one yourself, simply because you don't have enough money.
Ellipses and circles are "really" the same: a circle is an ellipse in which the focal distance is $0$. Or, put another way, from among all the ellipses
if you are going to choose a "canonical" one to define some functions, the natural choice is to use $a=b=1...
@Obliv You cannot strip humans of their contexts. We are social beings, even the ancient Greeks knew that. You cannot ask me what "I" want to do free of all influence, because an "I" that is free of influcence has never existed.
Your construction of an ideal goal that humans should follow just doesn't work - there is no way to determine it.
@acuri Actually, I can ask you what you want to do free of all external influence. You won't be able to do whatever that is since we can't (yet) live lives free of external influence. I'm arguing simply pursuing that 'goal' is the only valid path (maybe I'm just too antisocial).
@acuri I don't think it matters what the 'actual' you would do because we can't free anyone of all social contexts (unless you lived alone in svalbard with everything at your disposal). I think most, if not all, humans can imagine a life where they don't have to worry about anything.
@Obliv Okay. So why would doing what I imagine myself doing in the influence-free context be a more valid life choice than doing what I, well, actually would decide to do given the constraints I have to work with?
@acuri I think this argument would lead in circles, by the way, since we have different value systems and I'm looking at this from my own subjective experience. I'm not basing this off of pure logic. From my pov, leading this life is more important/the only valid thing because once you're dead, the life you lived will be permanent. Living this life for yourself instead of for others/because of others seems more valid to me for whatever reason.
@MAFIA36790 DZ said he can put link on main page, it can have more detail, will try to get that worked out soon, also DS has a statement of purpose now (see transcript), would like to see DS help respond to the meta objection(s)
was just talking to a foreign (indian) cs student who couldnt get his paper into arxiv without "endorsers". elsewhere a high rep Theoretical Computer Science user assured me there was no such requirement/ filter whatsoever, asserting maybe it was only with the physics sections
@dmckee it has gatekeeping policy and its undeclared/ opaque. worst of both worlds :(
::shrug:: The simply fact is that the wannabes and pretenders and kooks and cranks function as a denial of service attack against truly open systems. You don't even have to assume malicious intent: it's just that there are more of them and they generate more attempts to place material on the system than legitimate users.
It's similar to the problem we have on the site with homework-help.
@vzn Because endorsement requests go to real people who are busy doing real work. If the system allowed the requests to become a denial of service attack on the endorsers no one would agree to do the job.
Outsiders rarely understand how much of academia runs on people doing pro publica work that they don't get much credit for.
@ACuriousMind hadnt seen that recently. note that arxiv has been around a lot longer than 2004 (close to a decade more) where it said the policy started. etc... so maybe less opaque since then at least :|
@vzn I think that concerns details of how to contact endorsers or how to endorse people. You don't need that information unless you are already trying to submit an paper. I'm not sure what you think is "withheld", the rest of the page pretty clearly outlines how the process works.
@ACuriousMind they recently asked for comments/ survey/ general feedback. have some info on that in my link pile. think the transparency is improving some )(. but it was a nearly radical gesture/ unprecedented considering their history & it was somewhat acknowledged in the article.