@bolbteppa you think mgt/ modding/ policy/ feedback on this site is "an unimportant waste of time"? or something else? feel you had very valid points on this in the past eg re 0celo7. do urge you + all to visit the newly opened/ recently active election chat if you can actually make it out of this room :) alas for some reason the link seems buried and not easily findable from official election pgs/ announcements :| chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/92756/…
Last time I made a serious effort to contribute on that issue, I felt stonewalled by the moderatorship.
@DanielSank 2nd that emphatically, using your words exactly/ precisely, sometimes feel stonewalled by the moderatorship on some misc issues, but not the same one you raise. lets continue the discussion in the election room & dont think youre out of line at all/ whatsoever for raising a key site policy issue there. but youre also free to back down if you dont get immediate positive response :| btw have observed the rigid attitude by mods not only 1 place, think its sometimes SE framework.
@DanielSank well i imagine most people would say, "lazy homework dumps" (e.g., this recent one)
but i think the close reason is really applied to any question in which the user is asking us "how do i do X" where X pertains to solving a particular problem
dmckee proposed the renaming to be "problem solving" in the thread ACM lined earlier:
I think there is one real (or at least, really potential) issue with problem-solving: it could be applied to almost every question on the site. Presumably people wouldn't go around editing it in willy-nilly, but it is likely that new users will apply it without discrimination to their questions.
...
Ok, as I'm blind and use a screenreader, I didn't realise it was a proportion sign. And most sites only show images for formulas, which are inaccessible too. Also, I am assuming you use latec or math jacks for the symbols here, which also make the screen reader hang In a cycle. Could you give me a simple ASCII form of the distance given a period? — triple77 hours ago
Never having used a screen reader, does anyone know if latex/mathjax making it "hang in a cycle" normal behavior?
today I dreamt of my high school physics teacher giving lecture in our graduate school and one of my high school classmates and I both attended that lecture; I discussed with her that we should visit our long-unseen teacher personally sometime after lecture.
my high school physics teacher was a wonderful teacher who can give physics course in an excellent way and can solve my physics questions in a satisfying way. I admired him very much, but I haven't seen her for long, probably since after graduation.
of course after going to universities, I also have met some professors in different physics fields who can solve my physics questions in a satisfying way, but my high school physics teacher was among few teachers in my high school who can be that way.
actually I have been taught physics by 3 teachers in my high school. I meant that physics teacher who taught us for the longest time, the second and third years.
Well it kinda reminds me that my 4th and 5th year high school teacher is the primary reason why I am chatting in this chat room
Because he is the turning point that exploded my physics interest all the way to make it comparable with my strong chemistry interest
Back in my 3rd year, that other physics teacher is traditional and hence boring, thus my physics passion is nonexistent and thinking that physics is all just computation
that one, however, died of cancer in my 6th year and my friends mourns for him
He is actually a good teacher and explain things clearly, but his traditional method of teaching bores the newer generation that my class is in
I think when it comes to asking teachers questions, asking scientific and math teachers questions is the most meaningful. Though I have also asked my university English teacher questions, he seemed not to be able to explain my questions and was annoyed by me, saying "How can you have so many questions; I am very busy." I afterwards understood English language seems not to be able to ask why; people just write English that way and no analytical reason.
my high school only had three years. Before the three years, it's my junior high school, when we didn't physics course; we only the course which may contain phenomenological physics contents.
my interest in physics always superseded my interest in chemistry in high school; in high school I felt chemistry is just a superficial subject which can't explain nature in a fundamental way; on the other hand, chemistry is also full of formulas difficult to memorize, making chemistry not so favored by me as physics.
I don't touch much chemistry in university, so don't know how chemistry in university level is like.
in university we only had chemistry course in the first year, and those materials taught in that course are seldom used in my afterward physics courses, so I probably have forget most of them.
I also have taken the course condensed matter physics in my undergraduate school, but didn't touch much chemistry there; I remember there are a lot of crystal structures there, but I feel it's taught in a physics way, not chemistry way.
@Secret I have no impression that any of my teachers would talk about Christianity or philosophy though most of them would more or less talk about something digressive from their lecture probably to entertain us.
I feel philosophy too abstract to understand often and don't have much interest in it.
My MSc advisor has taught philosophy with me, and I told him I find philosophy not interesting me most of time.
@ACuriousMind I did have hopes for renovating the policy entirely (and I have abandoned those hopes), but I don't think that was the complete reason we didn't implement Daniel's suggestion.
I'd definitely be on board with that change getting re-proposed (and implemented, assuming the community still supports it), although I would want to be clear about what it's doing: it's not merely renaming the homework policy, it's replacing it with a new policy, closely related, but slightly different in scope, one which presumably aligns better with how people actually use their close votes these days.
Hello everyone I want to know that the answer (link given below) was almost complete and correct I think that the answer didn't require any update but why it was downvoted?
https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/474362/
@Chair I can't remember why I VTCd on this but I have to say I don't understand the comparison between a ball and a human body (or a ball of putty for that matter), and why this suggests that N3 isn't applicable. Moreover, there are plenty of questions on N3 throughout the site so to me this is yet another example of a question that could very much benefit from a little research.
Not sure if I voted as unclear or something else, but it sure looks like little research went into the question. I mean, a human body can move around quite a bit when colliding with a ground; very different from a deforming ball...
OP, as Aaron points out, is equivocating N3 with elastic collisions, it's not really clear why they think that in the first place
The question has ten downvotes. That kinda suggests a fair number of people think there is a problem with it. Probably the fact that it has any upvotes is due to it getting on HNQ.
user351417
3:15 PM
@KyleKanos (and @ZeroTheHero) Of course it isn't a great question; the presence of an exact duplicate is more proof that very little research went to it. And that certainly merits downvotes and VtCs. But I think that a custom close reason (with or without a link to the meta post about what counts as sufficient prior research) or a duplicate mark would be more helpful and would look more reasonable.
user351417
It's unclear why they think N3 is equivalent to elastic collisions, but that isn't too significant: whatever happens, it's clear enough that answers should discuss how inelastic collisions work.
Yes, comments would be nice. I've argued previously that "drive-by" unclear close votes shouldn't be done (which is why I suspect that I didn't use unclear)
what is an analytical diffeomorphism group? What does "analytical" therein mean? I guess it means being continuously differentiable a sufficient number of times, but doesn't diffeomorphism already implies "being continuously differentiable a sufficient number of times" or it just implies "being continuously differentiable once?
@JMac :) which platform have you tried? found it in a dave+busters arcade & was a bit gobsmacked (along with everyone else in crowd!) and then further gobsmacked to find out it came out in home versions over ½yr ago! have you seen the arcade version? fantastic, huge crowdpleaser! for me its a killer app & am gonna cash in my credit card miles for ps4 VR just for this game! they have a new bundle :) :o o_O
@vzn I have it on PC with a HP "Windows Mixed Reality" headset. My computer and headset are on the lower end of the spectrum of what VR can do ( GTX1060 6GB graphics and a i5-6500, if it means anything to you). It's still a blast and plays well. I'm guessing PSVR is a much cheaper option if you don't have a good PC though
Hello everyone I want to know that the answer (link given below) was almost complete and correct I think that the answer didn't require any update but why it was downvoted?
https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/474362/
