@XanderHenderson No wonder. Try to spend an hour (even a half hour) before bed by winding down. I've been there; the mind doesn't always cooperate by shutting down precisely when we want it to (e.g., finish up grading/finalize lesson plan, leave computer, and plop in bed.) I'm just saying that no one can keep up such hours, prolonged, without suffering consequences, to health, happiness, etc.
@XanderHenderson Wow!! That's awesome! It's a fabulous location! I think the worst part of the pandemic, aside from the toll on health, and lives, has been the isolation, the minimal opportunities to connect with others.
@amWhy Not much going on right now, because the JMMs were canceled.
There have been some workshops on things like "decolonizing mathematics", but I have been teaching during most of these and, frankly, have difficulty towing the party line.
@XanderHenderson Your actions speak for themselves, in terms of you teaching, where you've chosen to teach, who you teach... There are usually more exceptions to the tired stereotypes, that are accurately described by them. Indeed, they are no longer the "rules", only stereotypes.
Hello. Just want to ask how math.stackexchange.com/questions/4399164/… can be made better - since I do not understand the downvote. Also, I do not find minor typo errors as reason enough to downvote a question. I have corrected the typo pointed out by Kavi anyway.
I noticed that there is a linear increase of +1 in the stopping times of a sequence of numbers with the seeds being the sum of the previous number in the sequence added to itself.
I tried this on Excel. The hailstone sequences converge to 1, as expected.
for a sequence starting with 3
I also trie...
@amWhy I left a comment as well, the reopen-votes are still barely to understand.
@XanderHenderson Millions of people , including me , are more than sick of this pandemie , worse is only the current war and its terrible consequences. No good feeling that everything might break away soon.
This particular question is one of the highested voted questions on this site, but to my understanding, it is a gross violation of the EOQS: math.stackexchange.com/questions/379927/…
@Buraian Again, EoQS is a procedure, not a policy, and cannot be violated. Even so, the goal of EoQS is to target answers to questions which may have the effect of further encouraging poor questions.
Moreover, EoQS came into being recently, and that question is 8 years old. I agree that the question is not good by current standards, but it was acceptable when it was posted, and I see no reason to start going after such old questions when a philosophy of triage suggests targeting new posts.
Similar comments pertain to the remainder of the posts you suggest here, which all seem to be quite old.
You had in a previous conversation noted that EOQS existed in the past as well. The only difference now being that it is actually enforced. If it is so, then it must be that the questions posted in the past must be retroactively closed as it is found again.
I don't think its worth anyones time to go on a 'hunt' of old questions and close them up. However, I do think just closing the posts as one encounters in long term can reduce hints of hypocrisy the site has.
The gross violation post had an answer again in 2020. Simply by keeping the posts which don't fall in line with policy from the past will allow further activity on posts misaligned with policy.
You can cut the board in less than a second because assuming you can cut out 2 extremely small pieces of the board and if she works at the same rate this should take less than a second.
@Buraian I cannot imagine a question good enough to deserve such a score, but this is another story. Actually, this question is not good even by past standards, despite the score. But I also agree Xander. It is more important to delete newer posts.
You are free to post whatever questions or answers you want in here, but understand that most of us are not going to take action on older questions. Folk have a limited number of votes to cast, and older questions simply aren't a priority. Again, it is a question of triage.
Yes, I agree, but what I am saying is, these type of questions can still be answered, and hence posts of poor quality as questions produce more posts of poor quality as answers @peter
Not closing at the moment itself will introduce more unneccesary stress on the filtering systems in the future.
@XanderHenderson Of course, a post being closed or kept open depends on the will of those with the ability to cast votes.
@Buraian The main problem is that users give too many (not always justified) upvotes , unfortunately often related to the rep of the author or the answerer or what other users did. This can be annyoing even if the question has enough context , but a comment would do the job as well. But some users are apparently thrilled by an even higher rep and answer everything they can, surely the best way to get 200K or more rep , if someone needs that ...
What I really cannot understand however is that so many utterly off-topic broad and opinion-based posts that have barely to do anything with mathematics are upvoted to heaven. Just look at the posts with the highest scores and you will see what I mean.
@Buraian The question was posted in 2013, and answered by most answerers then, at that time. I don't think it's a good idea for recent users to add another answer, which you note, because enough has been said on it. That was roughly 9 years ago. Please do not compare apples and oranges.
@Peter I'm not sure which post you are referring to?
@XanderHenderson I've downvoted. I hope others do too. Meet an up and coming prolific answerer of PSQs I've encountered every day, twice or more times a day, answering PSQs.
@amWhy Unfortunately, it has been reopened after closure. Sigh.. @XanderHenderson: What do you think?
@Peter Can try anyway.
As requested by Peter, please downvote to delete this answer if you agree that it is a non-answer. @XanderHenderson @TheSimpliFire @ParamanandSingh @RRL @BillDubuque @MartinR @Snaw @JoséCarlosSantos @KReiser
Heya @amWhy and good evening :) I'm just passing through, but thank-you. I've just seen that the OP was discussing something similar in here earlier and I think the answers provided here would have been sufficient (well, for me, I suppose!). But perhaps it doesn't hurt to see if community opinion about old questions has changed recently :)
@user21820 I am having trouble following back-links to determine what post you are referencing, here. Can you please just post a link if you want me to look at it?
@user21820 Since my delete votes can only be undone by a diamond moderator, I will decline to take action here. It is not clear cut enough for me to wade into it.
@XanderHenderson I understand. I was hoping to clear your question up. We'll need @Peter, @MartinR, @BillDubuque, to vote to close any of which may have cast the new close vote. But please note the answerer. Another new FGITW.
@RRL, @rschwieb, could you weigh in on the link immediately above, with a vote, if you're so inclined?
You can cut the board in less than a second because assuming you can cut out 2 extremely small pieces of the board and if she works at the same rate this should take less than a second.
