@XanderHenderson: that $\pi$ non-sense is gone.

@ParamanandSingh Alas, poor $\pi$ nonsense! I knew him, Horatio! A post of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy.

(and that is all of that speech that I can remember)

@XanderHenderson : nice speech btw. I find it hard to believe some user gave arguments for reopening this question in comments.

There's been no improvement on this question.

But I don't think it needs to go just as yet, placing a downvote however.

@TeresaLisbon The user was last seen yesterday, so it is possible that they haven't even seen that the question has been closed.

@XanderHenderson Oh yes, thanks. We must then be more patient.

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Linked punctuation in body (0): question about calculus $f(x)=e^x(x^2+x)$, derive $\dfrac{d^n\,f(x)}{dx^n}$ ✏️ by toni tian on math.SE

D

@Peter Gone!

@TeresaLisbon Hi, I have seen you help quite a lot of people here ( if I am in the correct room). Would you like to help me out in one issue I am having in transformations particularly non linear ones

@Shashaank Replied on CURED. Only CURED work goes on here, you can ask me about that in the Lisbon chatroom as well.

@TeresaLisbon I have replied to you in the Lisbon chatroom

We must debate over this question. @XanderHenderson @amWhy @Peter @ParamanandSingh Kindly take note of this post. It may be a contest post, that is currently under a bounty. I am responsible for its opening, I assumed context was sufficient. Can we think about closing this?

I see no evidence for this question being from an ongoing contest. If the user does not mention a contest (which is the case here), only someone knowing the contest will be able to identify this as an exercise from it. Just that the style of a question is contest-like , is not enough evidence to my opinion. We should not close the question, until this is clarified.

@Peter Thank you. Will wait for further opinion. Out for a few hours from now, just to clarify.

@Peter While there is no evidence (yet) that this is from an ongoing contest, I do not think that we should not close it, because it lacks context. As you admitted, the asker did not state the source of the problem.

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword with a link in answer, link at end of answer, potentially bad keyword in answer (142): derivative of cost function for Neural Network classifier by Thanh Tam Mai on math.SE

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword with a link in answer, potentially bad ns for domain in answer, blacklisted user (152): Encoding a Discrete Signal to an Artificial Neural Network? by Thanh Tam Mai on math.SE

@user21820 Whether there is enough context/effort is another story. I only refered to the contest-issue. Anyway, we should not exeggerate it with closing/deleting posts. Not every question needs a source, not every question needs a one page long trial. I only vote to close/delete if the lack of effort/context is really apparent , otherwise I rather decide to do nothing.

@Peter I don't exaggerate. It's fine if you have lower standards, that's why I said "I do not think we should not" rather than "we should not".

@TeresaLisbon: the question is worth setting in a contest. Maybe it is from contest but unless we get details not sure. I don't see much context however. The problem is well described (at least better than typical PSQs), but I think adding a little more information is desirable. Perhaps a small trial based on $n=3$ and $2^{64}$ replaced by something like $2^8$. Usually if a problem appears challenging enough there should be more details.

We should compare this with problems discussed in pearl dive. They are usually challenging and have significant context.

@Peter Perhaps not, but it is fundamentally a psq with instructions telling us to given them an answer, given all the specs. Not an ounce of input from the OP.

HEY, has anyone seen the updates to the review queue?

^^^they'll take a bit of time to get used to, for me, since I've been reviewing, like forever, but I like the increased functionality, visibility of comments, and the capacity to downvote/upvote all in the same review page.

@JoséCarlosSantos What do you think about today's roll-out of the remodeled review queues?

Please consider closing

Another must go question

There ye be, @AlexanderGruber! It seems this room is most populated in our morning hours!

@Alexander Speaking of the current wardrobe of you identicon needs a breath of fresh air. I'd like to see you as a masked Pirate!

it does indeed. i've been a lazy artist lately

@AlexanderGruber I've talked robjohn into being a mean green Shamrock machine for Patty's day!

@amWhy that's a good idea :)

@amWhy I've looked at it, but haven't had a chance to play with it yet. I am sure that I will hate it for a week, then grow to love it, and be upset all over again in a year or seven when it changes again.

@XanderHenderson I hear you! I'm adapting to it fairly well, but yes, it'll take a little time until we can't figure out why it was anything other than what it is now!

My feeling is that if you have equation numbering which requires three levels of hierarchy, then your question probably doesn't belong here... That being said, I am not sure that I can articulate a good close reason.

@XanderHenderson I agree with you. It is just plain too broad, and too unfocused for this site.

^^^^@XanderHenderson I voted to close as "needs focus", but I wish I had written a custom reason: "This question is too broad."

Okay... there is good and bad with the new interface.

But one of the "good" is that I now have full access to all moderator tools while reviewing. This is unambiguously good.

And the bad is mostly just that stuff is in different places, and is going to take time to get used to.

Overall, this appears to be a change for the better.

From the review queue: math.stackexchange.com/questions/4009102/…

I have very mixed feelings about this question. I think that there is something interesting (are there space filling curves which really truly live on the sphere?), but it is also incredibly poorly defined (what does it mean to really truly live on the sphere?).

How can this be made more rigorous? Is there any advice that can be given to the asker?

The "locality" condition seems to rule out mapping to a square first, then the sphere (because you are going to have problems at the boundary), but I my intuition is that this condition is going to be impossible to meet. :\

@amWhy: I was desperately waiting for new review queues. It's a godsend for those who use the site on mobile device. I woke up in middle of sleep and saw your message and handled the red dot close queue. And it says you can come back in 8 minutes to review more.

So for those in India the best time to review is at 5am IST. That way you can handle 40 questions in close queue in your active hours in single day.

Thanks to all those in se worked on new review queues.

@ParamanandSingh Excellent! I'm don't always welcome change, but this one is great!