I have been learning more about measuring complexity of neural networks, should I edit everything into my existing answer, or should I make a new answer? In particular, if I learnt some other techniques other than VC-dimension, that I think are worse but still of interest, should I create a separate answer or expand my existing one? What is the general protocol and such things? or is it upto me as the answer-giver?
@ArtemKaznatcheev Anything that fits under that umbrella should probably stay with that existing answer, anything with a new slant can be given its own
There has been a round of recent site closures.
Astronomy
Economics
Literature
Firearms
Healthcare IT
Theoretical Physics
Astronomy and Theoretical Physics might be preserved by rolling content into Physics.SE.
Perhaps just a personal opinion, but Firearms and Healthcare IT sound fairly niche...
I'm asking this in light of the Beta site closure announcements question, but I don't want to steal its thunder.
Realizing that we share at least some of the subject matter in common with the proposal for http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/38069/neuroinformatics, would it make sense to ab...
@BenBrocka Yeah, I just tapped out some thoughts. I knew it was coming for HIT (I kept waiting for the site to be shut when I got there), but seeing it's company (TP, Lit, etc) was a bit scary
We HIT mods are like ninjas, hiding in the trees of SE
As an added bonus I added that extra Meta question about neuroinformatics, I figure we could use all the help we can get
The core of my answer on Jeromy's question is that we need to employ the Reddit machine more. I know everyone disdains it a bit, but it's a great resource for linking
Yeah, HIT was just starting to shape up a bit, too. There's a ton of standards out there and people are starting to wade through them
The top users asked all they had to ask in the beginning and took off, though
Everyone needs some pop-sci. I hate it, most other people hate it, but it's a drawing card and selling out just a teensy bit would do wonders for our site (don't quote me on that, I'll regret saying this in 5...4...3....2....)
@ArtemKaznatcheev just make an MSO account, you can't not have an MSO account and participate in the general SE network :P
@jonsca Don't know, but they must have had some reason they even let TP go this far, and it's numbers aren't great with a successful site that basically completely overlaps it in potential scope
Yeah, but HIT went like a week and a half without any, and I mean any, questions in January and nothing was said or done. Now, it starts to pick up and they kill it? The patterns seem haphazard, but perhaps with other data it would make sense.
(I still have leftover grief from the Machine Learning fiasco, so forgive my cynicism)
(all my rep on stats.SE for instance, comes mostly from the few questions I asked on ML.SE and got upvoted there and the upvotes carried over during merger into stats)
The truth is, it's a medium to medium-low traffic tag on their site
Yes, and everyone knows that
And not all ML is stats, there's plenty of engineering to it
So I think they wanted to allay the stats folks (as I think a lot of effort went into bolstering stats.SE in its infancy) but wanted to give it a "chance" so they send CHAOS who plants a "This site is closing in a week" sign right in the beginning of private beta. Surprise, surprise, it failed
(I guess there were no dead Apple executives to celebrate that week)
@Ben: absolutely - any site that looks like that should be realizing that they have some serious work to do. The primary difference when looking at the two was that Ling was extremely small and has slowly been getting bigger, while Theoretical Physics got off to a reasonably good start and has been trending down ever since (I'm generalizing a bit here, since it depends on what you look at - but there's a reasonable hope that Linguistics is digging its way out after a rocky start). — Shog913 mins ago
hmm, I don't like the question too much (as in, I did not give it an up-vote, but also did not down-vote), still. I think it is very broad, and the OP should consider asking some build up questions.
Oh, nonono I meant the question is not perfect. I know the answer is garbage.
*just a minute, my brain needs to belch, it's full
I was answering " the OP should consider asking some build up questions." and then I commented that I was flagging the answer, it all became one thought hehe
Proposed Q&A site for users of the Roblox MMOG, who need help with scripting or building. Not for the consumers of its many games, but for their creators.
Currently in commitment.
(not suggesting a merge, just thought that was funny)
Look at Stack Overflow. There's everything from questions about complex enterprise systems to basic hello-world to obscure languages to even homework, all under one successful site. I don't think that it's unreasonable to have doctoral research and high school homework on the same physics site. To say must be separated is elitist. — nhinkle11 hours ago
BTW, sounds like Theoretical PHysics might be completely migrated to Physics (barring crap closed questions presumably)
There has been a round of recent site closures.
Astronomy
Economics
Literature
Firearms
Healthcare IT
Theoretical Physics
Astronomy and Theoretical Physics might be preserved by rolling content into Physics.SE.
Perhaps just a personal opinion, but Firearms and Healthcare IT sound fairly niche...
The Axon Terminal
The Axon Terminal