« first day (914 days earlier)      last day (3560 days later) » 

acl
12:34 AM
Apparently, the 200 most-frequently-appearing word in the chat transcript over the last two months are
{"the", "I", "to", "a", "is", "it", "of", "and", "that", "in", "you", \
"for", "this", "PM", "not", "be", "have", "with", "but", "on", "are", \
"AM", "can", "day", "as", "if", "Rojo", "like", "was", "my", "all", \
"just", "do", "about", "so", "at", "one", "an", "belisarius", "what", \
"or", "think", "some", "halirutan", "don't", "your", "from", ":)", \
"@rm-rf", "@Rojo", "it's", "acl", "Szabolcs", "would", "me", "rm", \
"->", "-rf", "will", "Mathematica", "know", "I'm", "The", "more", \
"use", "we", "It", "get", "@Szabolcs", "by", "there", "first", \
3
(this includes the entire webpage)
 
1:02 AM
@acl I clearly spend too much time here.
 
1:25 AM
@Szabolcs sorry for the late response. No I don't have those; in fact I avoid them (don't like replacing batteries).
 
@acl Wow, I have been talking too much
Does that count a "Rojo" every time I speak? If not, people have been talking about me and halirutan behind our back without pinging
 
1:44 AM
and belis, acl, Sz
which clearly is not the case
So, Rojo> @Rojo, belisarius > @belisarius, halirutan > @halirutan, acl>@acl, means we've been talking more than people have replied
Either we are being annoying, or we like to talk in shorter messages than average
which
is
clearly
not
my
 
@Szabolcs. minor grip but it would be better if your word frequency counter ignored case.
 
case
 
In case anybody hasn't noticed, we are rapidly increasing the cases of "case" -- at least in the case of several recent posts.
 
2:00 AM
@Szabolcs sounds ridiculous. Why don't they just provide an interface to the function that converts the string so that you can do it by yourself and get rid of the source string straight away?
@Rojo I think maybe. The documentation is remarkably non-specific about a lot of things, which is fine as long as it works the way you expect, but otherwise...
On the other hand if you talk only about completely undocumented functions then I think people have to expect that they may have bugs or not be suitable for general usage.
 
 
6 hours later…
7:49 AM
I have upgraded my Mathematica 9 to 10 and now I am downloading it. My computer has been reformatted and the operating system is restored. My question is "should I install the version 9 first and then run the version 10 installer? Or can I just run the version 10 installer?" Sorry it is the first time I upgraded.
 
@Pleasedon'ttouch You don't need v9 to install v10
 
@Rojo OK. Thanks.
Cited from Wolfram site, "OutputForm[expr] : a two‐dimensional form using only keyboard characters". My question is "what does two-dimensional form mean?"
 
8:19 AM
@Pleasedon'ttouch with overscripts, sub, super, underscripts, fractions below, etc
 
@Rojo OK. Thanks. The term is a bit confusing to me.
 
9:19 AM
Argh!
Wonder what has happened to my v10 installation now. If I do ctrl-=, write some input and attempt to exit that input container (so it would be evaluated to an entity), kernel and FE go to busyloop.
Ehm. Now the problem went away, although it persisted over multiple Mma restarts.
Smells like nasty dependency on back-end servers.
This occurred to me also roughly 20 hours or so when I last tried to demonstrate the stuff.
 
 
1 hour later…
10:37 AM
@Rojo "Rojo, the paranoid chatoid" ... I've read that before
 
 
11 hours later…
9:39 PM
@Rojo heya. I hope you don't dislike my recent answer about the *By family too much. You have a good point and I should not complain too much. I suppose there are a lot of criteria and I must say I am bit fuzzy on what is important and what is not really. Anyway, of course the most (only?) important case is the documented case and the most important criterion for the code is that it gives the correct output. Second is that it has no side effects.
Third is that the code does not give bad output if we provide Unevaluated around an argument. I feel that a bad transformation in the undocumented case should be accompanied by a message, but that is probably even less important. And then there are side effects and using Unevaluated in the undocumented case, but although this can be interesting to point out, it is probably not nice to complain.
I am hoping to update the answer in such a way that I can email support@wolfram.com and link to relevant sections for bug report. Probably I will put somewhere in there that it is not the biggest issue.
 
 
1 hour later…
10:56 PM
I like this question very much:
9
Q: The number of users - curious jumps

ArtesSometimes I check how many users of mathematica.stackexchange.com there are. I remember that a few weeks ago there were about 15 thousand and recently I've been surprised seeing that the new users are signed with numbers over 18000. Let's check this site, the new users therein have numbers sligh...

Is there no way to get an exact number of human members we have? Maybe all those that at least asked one question or answered one or at least voted?
 
11:09 PM
any one here? I think I found some amazing bug in version 10
 
@halirutan The supporter badge (first up vote) has been awarded 3357. Could be a good estimate.
 
@Pickett Indeed, sound reasonable.
@Pickett let's see how many exemplary members we have :-)
 
@halirutan lol, I don't have it. But in my defense it was retired in June 2013 just as I started using the site.
 
@Pickett :-)
 
11:47 PM
@Pickett Me, too
 
:P
 

« first day (914 days earlier)      last day (3560 days later) »