The h Bar

3:18 PM

Silly question, but does anyone know (from the top of their head) of a recent (say, 2013 to now) paper from either Nature or Science (related to physics ideally) that has equal contributing authors? So the system with the asterisk and the subcaption stating "These authors contributed equally to this work". I know that it is something that is occurring more and more (and also accepted by Nature) and I have definitely seen it, but a recent example I somehow cannot find.

Oh, preferably also not a letter, if its from nature.

Sir Cumference

3:52 PM

Guys

Is the ton a unit of weight and mass?

Or just one of those?

user228700

3

user228700

@BernardMeurer: I rofld so hard x'D

Sir Cumference

@Kaumudi That your video?

ACuriousMind

@SirCumference That's an unanswerable question because in some conventions you use the same "unit" for both, with the meaning that the weight is the gravitational force exerted by something with that mass on earth.

user228700

@SirCumference No, that's a video about an effing computer problem that @JohnRennie uploaded xD

Sir Cumference

3:54 PM

@obe Become an astronomer

@Kaumudi XD

@ACuriousMind Wait what

user228700

@SirCumference Dyou want the link?

Sir Cumference

@Kaumudi Sure

ACuriousMind

@SirCumference It's first and foremost a unit of mass. But some people use units of mass as units of weight by declaring that the weight "1kg" is to be understood as the grav. force something with mass 1kg exerts on earth.

user228700

E6530 boot problem

►

Sir Cumference

@ACuriousMind That's trippy...

Is that the case with pound-force vs. pound-mass?

ACuriousMind

3:57 PM

Formally speaking, of course, those two "kg" are not the same unit - one is a unit of mass and the other of weight.

@SirCumference Yes, exactly.

Sir Cumference

@ACuriousMind Ugh this system is annoying

ACuriousMind

Yes, it is

Loong

@SirCumference Use ISO 80000 or the SI Brochure. Then it is clearly a unit of mass. :-)

John Rennie

@Kaumudi Fame at last :-)

2

Emilio Pisanty

4:15 PM

@JohnRennie Is that your voice?

Sir Cumference

@EmilioPisanty I knew he was from the U.K. but I can only read text here with an American accent

So his voice surprised me XD

ACuriousMind

@SirCumference What? I always imagined an English gentleman with a top hat and monocle sipping tea when reading @JohnRennie's posts

5

John Rennie

What ho? Jolly good show. Absolutely spiffing, old chap.

Jim

@JohnRennie You say that so often it's lost all meaning

Sir Cumference

Now I need to read all of your posts with the correct accent

@BernardMeurer I don't know what a Brazilian accent sounds like ;-;

HDE 226868

4:21 PM

@ACuriousMind Something must be wrong with my computer; that's exactly what I see:

5

Sir Cumference

@HDE226868 Oh god XD

I'm dying

@obe Go astro

user218912

lol

Bernard Meurer

Oh my hahahaha

user228700

@HDE226868 Omg xD

user218912

tbh I already changed my mind from last night.

user218912

4:24 PM

I should kill myself

user218912

@SirCumference

user228700

@JohnRennie :-)

Bernard Meurer

@SirCumference I don't have an accent, or at least I think I don't. @obe, @Obliv and @ACuriousMind have heard me speak and can say better than me I guess

Sir Cumference

@obe Woah what

@BernardMeurer How do you not have an accent?

Bernard Meurer

@obe Stop being a drama queen, sit down think things through, draft a plan and bloody stick to it

Sir Cumference

4:25 PM

Pretty sure everyone who's ever lived has had one

user228700

I second that ^

John Rennie

Sweet mother of God, I've put far too much chili in this risotto. This could prove fatal.

Bernard Meurer

@obe In the end you probably will have gone nowhere near the plan expected, but that doesn't matter

Sir Cumference

@JohnRennie Did you get your computer fixed?

Bernard Meurer

@SirCumference I meant as in I sound American, which to americans = no accent

Sir Cumference

4:26 PM

@BernardMeurer Oh, cool

John Rennie

@SirCumference I had to replace the motherboard in the nd.

Sir Cumference

I can easily read your posts now

user218912

apparently I have an accent that is clear to americans. @BernardMeurer

John Rennie

Luckily I had a spare to hand.

user218912

@BernardMeurer ideally this is what i want to do.

Sir Cumference

4:26 PM

@obe Where you from?

user218912

but it doesn't work out

Bernard Meurer

@SirCumference I once got on a joke of telling people i was from Maine, everyone bought it since they didn't know anyone from Maine

user218912

@SirCumference canada...

Bernard Meurer

@obe You're very much Canadian

Sir Cumference

@obe Oh, canada, eh?

user218912

4:27 PM

lol

HDE 226868

@obe Do you have an academic advisor you can talk to?

user218912

@HDE226868 yes

user218912

they say the same thing as you guys

Sir Cumference

@obe About girls?

HDE 226868

Which is?

user218912

4:27 PM

what?

user228700

@JohnRennie A spare to hand? :-|

Bernard Meurer

Funny thing: My comment on @JohnRennie's video is not even a lie, the video gave me a computer, it did change my life :P

user218912

@HDE226868 basically what bernard said.

user228700

@BernardMeurer Huh?

user218912

@SirCumference we're talking about academics

Sir Cumference

4:28 PM

@obe oh

what's wrong?

user218912

can't decide what to do

user218912

everything seems so interesting

Sir Cumference

@obe Lucky you

John Rennie

@Kaumudi I get broken laptops from work, and I can often build a working laptop from the carcasses of several broken ones. Then I give the working laptops away.

Sir Cumference

I'm stuck with astronomy

Nothing else seems interesting

user218912

4:29 PM

don't be so close minded.

Sir Cumference

@obe Hard not to be

user218912

i used to be like you

Sir Cumference

Nothing else seems so "Woah!"

user228700

@JohnRennie That's an excellent skill to have! :-D

John Rennie

@Kaumudi Do you want a laptop? :-)

user218912

4:30 PM

@SirCumference ummm, physics?

Sir Cumference

@obe Yeah, but physics is only 70% as cool

Astronomy's got the additional fact that it's in space

user218912

@SirCumference yer kidding

Sir Cumference

Has anyone ever not liked space?

user218912

space is scary

Sir Cumference

space is cool

user218912

4:31 PM

okay let me throw you into outer space and tell me how cool it is then :)

Sir Cumference

@obe That's astronautics

Not astronomy :P

Besides, being a theoretical physicist in general leads me to the same life problems I'll encounter in the future

user218912

which are?

John Rennie

Space is deep it is so endless

user228700

@JohnRennie :-) I'll be needing one next year :-| I will ask u for advice!

Sir Cumference

@obe Few jobs, not enough money to compensate for the amount of education...I love the subject a lot, but I'd rather not put all my dreams into something that will leave me unemployed or struggling financially...

It's scary

@JohnRennie Can you hear me Major Rennie?

user218912

4:33 PM

@SirCumference nah if ur gud it's all cooool

Sir Cumference

@obe What?

user218912

ppl will throw money at you to think about stuff

user218912

but you have to get good first.

Sir Cumference

@obe More people throw money at Neil deGrasse Tyson than any real astronomer

user218912

that's for a different reason

Sir Cumference

4:34 PM

3

Many fall into the category of "dark astronomers"

(the image is a nice joke, but it's got a point)

user218912

astronomy is boring because modern astronomy is just computer science and statistics.

Sir Cumference

@obe It's partly that

But when you come down to it, the core of modern astronomy is really discovery

Computer science and statistics just lead to that core

user218912

yes discovery through data which computers do for you

Sir Cumference

The idea that we can discover our universe is amazing

@obe But isn't it thrilling, to know more about the universe?

user218912

eventually astronomers will become obsolete because we'll have like deep learning shit figuring out all the astro-data and making discoveries

HDE 226868

4:38 PM

@obe Eh, but that's not computer science.

user218912

and it will be wayyy more efficient than an astronomer

Sir Cumference

@obe You could argue that for any job

user218912

@HDE226868 what is it then?

Sir Cumference

This is a great documentary on that

Humans Need Not Apply

►

10 mins

It explains how, in the future, any job you really can think of could be automated

And already is being automated

HDE 226868

@obe It's just using computers as a tool for analysis. Computers are not, I think, going to be able to take over astronomy nay time soon. Even the algorithms used by the Kepler team to identify possible exoplanets have their limitations. Humans are still needed to sort through the data.

Sir Cumference

4:40 PM

@HDE226868 To obe's credit, the video I sent covers that topic. It's got pretty good reason to believe astronomy jobs going to go downhill

user218912

@HDE226868 yes but in the future machine learning will be more efficient than humans to sort through the data.

Sir Cumference

As with almost any job

HDE 226868

@obe Fair enough.

user218912

@SirCumference 15 liar :p

Sir Cumference

@obe Just checked, my memory is bad :(

Thought it was 10

Emilio Pisanty

4:41 PM

@SirCumference Yeah, CGP Grey's take on it is great

John Rennie

@Kaumudi if you're interested in the interpretation of the screening constant in Modeley's law this is a very good explanation.

Sir Cumference

@obe Hopefully by the end of that you'll be pretty convinced

And partly cynical

user218912

okay if the future is a.i. then isn't it best to work in a.i.?

Sir Cumference

@EmilioPisanty Glad ya watch him too :D

HDE 226868

@SirCumference Ha, see this. (It looks like there's a Worldbuilding version of Godwin's law.)

Sir Cumference

4:42 PM

@obe Video covers that too. More people are programming computers that can program themselves.

GPhys

when matplotlib causes python to segfault after a 5 minute run where I didn't save it to disk first Q_Q

Sir Cumference

Soon that job will be screwed

Emilio Pisanty

But then again, every time I see those arguments I go "yeah, tell me something beyond what Kurt Vonnegut was writing about in '52"

(the specific novel in question being Player Piano)

Sir Cumference

@HDE226868 I'll read that if you watch the video

Best to get both perspectives

HDE 226868

Deal.

user218912

4:43 PM

@SirCumference no I mean working on machine learning algorithms which will code themselves

Sir Cumference

Especially since the video makes a really good point

@obe Just watch the vid. It'll explain it better than I can.

user218912

i am watching it

user218912

well, listening to it

user228700

@JohnRennie Will read it t'row, thank u :-)

user218912

wait so a.i. will eventually do theoretical physics better than physicists? @SirCumference @ACuriousMind

Sir Cumference

4:46 PM

@obe The video gets to that (if my memory serves me properly)

user218912

you can feed an a.i. all the physics journals and tell it to figure stuff out. lol

ACuriousMind

@obe A proper A.I. will eventually do everything better than humans

user218912

fuck my life is pointless then

Sir Cumference

@obe Nah, just watch the vid

user218912

i should 1. die or 2. work on a.i.

Sir Cumference

4:47 PM

And don't get too depressed by it

What we need right now is people who can come up with a solution for the problem of increasing AI, and convince the world of that

We need to use our heads

user218912

why would we do that when we can just use the a.i. to figure it out for us :p

ACuriousMind

@obe Why would it be? Unless you're a very rare genius, in every field you choose there are already humans who are better at it than you will ever be.

Sir Cumference

@obe ACM makes a good point. Don't let it bring you down too much.

user218912

@ACuriousMind true but being better doesn't necessarily mean more accomplished, you can figure stuff out that someone way better than you couldn't because you were exposed to things they weren't which allowed you to make connections they couldn't.

user218912

:p

user218912

4:51 PM

but an a.i. can figure out everything because we can expose it to everything by feeding it journals and even more than that.

ACuriousMind

...you do realize that we're very far from true A.I., right?

Sir Cumference

@obe A.I. is getting better and better, it'll soon replace a lot of jobs

But not all of them for a good while

Jobs requiring lots of brainwork won't get replaced for a good amount of time

user218912

@ACuriousMind then what are you? xD

ACuriousMind

On an unrelated note, new obligatory skcd for all those "there's no dark matter" posts.

Sir Cumference

@obe As @JohnRennie proved, computers will never be perfect

E6530 boot problem

►

user218912

4:55 PM

right...

Sir Cumference

@obe Now it's clear what @BernardMeurer meant by "Simply amazing. This video changed my life"

It's proof

Bernard Meurer

Hm?

user218912

eh well he's wearing a blue shirt in the video.

user218912

:p

HDE 226868

@SirCumference I just finished the video.

Sir Cumference

5:00 PM

@HDE226868 Well?

user218912

same^

Sir Cumference

I finished the post a good while ago

HDE 226868

@SirCumference We're all $&%(#@* screwed.

user218912

well i finished 5 mins ago

Sir Cumference

What'd ya think?

@HDE226868 XD

HDE 226868

5:00 PM

Consider my position changed a bit.

user218912

@SirCumference that video made me reconsider my area of study again...

user218912

which is not what i needed...

Sir Cumference

@obe No, don't.

Do what you enjoy

user218912

i enjoy everything

Sir Cumference

@obe Then explore lots of things

Do some stuff as an amateur

user218912

5:04 PM

i have to study something in university

user218912

as of right now i'm undeclared non-degree seeking because idk what to do

user218912

just taking courses randomly

user218912

:(

Sir Cumference

@obe Dude, I wish I were as open-minded as you

user218912

I wasn't always like this :p

Sir Cumference

5:08 PM

@HDE226868 The guy who made that video makes other great ones

Education-based

DanielSank

5:19 PM

@Danu physics simple function

user116211

Hmm, either I miss an interesting conversation or I come at the dead end these days T__T

DanielSank

o/

user116211

@DanielSank \o

DanielSank

@MAFIA36790 maybe it makes you feel better that I almost never know what anyone's talking about in here.

user116211

:|

user116211

5:30 PM

@obe What new topic are you doing in maths?

user116211

I'm loving group theory.

user116211

So, I would say, do some advanced Group Theory; it is thrilling.

user116211

Currently, I'm also doing the exercise of Herstein. some problems are easy but some are not; it's not boring :)

user218912

@MAFIA36790 i am learning real analysis

user116211

That's good; I've taken a brief leave from my analysis study to delve into Group Theory. Last time, I was doing the exercise of Royden; but didn't complete.

user116211

5:38 PM

when I'm done, I would resume it from Measure theory.

user218912

7:54 PM

@MAFIA36790 nice you already know the basics of real analysis? like dedekind cuts for constructing $\mathbb R$, basic topology and epsilon-delta limits/continuity and the differentiation theorems?

user218912

i'm learning that right now :(

Physics Guy

8:30 PM

@MAFIA36790 Group theory IS thrilling

rob

9:12 PM

In insignificant news, my physics.SE reputation is a round number today.

heather

9:28 PM

hello

heather

10:16 PM

PSA: the next homework policy question is written!

ACuriousMind

10:49 PM

@heather I'm not sure I understand that question. Once we've determined our scope, no "leeway" should be given. What's on-topic is on-topic, what's off-topic is off-topic. What's in the zone in-between needs to be discussed on a case-by-case basis.

I mean, what do you want me to say as an answer to that question? Also, you're once again doing this thing where you're asking suggestive questions - what's a "basic question", and who suggested we don't want them? Who said that questions that might be on-topic at biology.SE must be off-topic here? What about the previous thread you allegedly based this question on talked about the "conceptualness" of questions?

Bernard Meurer

@ACuriousMind Howdy, could you help me on a proof I'm having trouble with?

ACuriousMind

There's a lot of unspoken reasoning that went into the formulation of that meta post, and I think the entire point of our effort to rephrase the homework policy is that we don't leave things unspoken

@BernardMeurer That depends on the proof, but probably yes

Bernard Meurer

let $\rho$ be a real function defined and continuous in $[1,+\infty[$ such that $$\rho(1)=2 \hspace{25pt} \lim_{x\rightarrow +\infty}\rho(x)=0$$

@ACuriousMind That

ACuriousMind

I don't see any statement here that needs proving

You just defined a function $\rho$ with those two properties.

Bernard Meurer

Oh, my bad

Prove $\rho$ has a maximum

ACuriousMind

11:01 PM

What do you need help with?

Bernard Meurer

@ACuriousMind Since $\rho\rightarrow 0$, $\exists M>0: |\rho(x)|<2$ for $x>M$. The maximum will be on $[1,M]$ no clue how to find it though

ACuriousMind

@BernardMeurer $[1,M]$ is a compact set. Do you not know that functions always attain a maximum on a compact set?

Bernard Meurer

@ACuriousMind Also, the statement above was given by @0celo7, and I'm not sure I understand it entirely, I mean, since rho goes to zero, it is trivial to see that there will be a rho that is less than two, but why is it in abs

@0celo7 Said the same thing

|-| this close to saying "fuck this shit" and just dropping analysis :)

ACuriousMind

It's called the extreme value theorem,

@BernardMeurer The point is that, since $\rho$ goes to zero, there is some $M$ after which it is closer to zero than 2. That's the definition of "going to zero at infinity" - for each number $k$, there is a $K$ such that $\lvert \rho(x)\rvert < k$ for all $x > K$.

So either $M = 1$, and the maximum is at 1, or the function gets larger than 2 somewhere in the interval $[1,M]$:

Bernard Meurer

Well, since I only have to prove it exists the work is done, right?

ACuriousMind

11:08 PM

@BernardMeurer What is "it" in that sentence

Bernard Meurer

@ACuriousMind The maximum of $\rho$

ACuriousMind

If you know the extreme value theorem, then yes, you're done.

Bernard Meurer

@ACuriousMind Just as a question (this is one of those exam questions you were helping me with yesterday, not homework, you can check here, it should be clear that "Teste"==test), when doing this on an exam how could I write this down formally?

Physics Meta

1

Q: Leeway in deviating from goals of this site

This post is the second post of a series; the first can be found here and the post that inspired this series of questions can be found here. How much freedom are we willing to grant users in deviating from the goals of this site? From the last post, the goals of this site are (by popular vote):...

Bernard Meurer

Like, do I have to say when I'm using the theorem, say it's name, things like that. This exam (tomorrow) will be the first more formal maths exam I'll take, so I really don't know how to properly do these things. I know I'll do poorly so I'd like avoiding loosing marks on formality mistakes

heather

11:15 PM

@ACuriousMind, those points are merely meant as things to be considered when writing the answer. However, I might point out that the previous question did talk about how conceptual the question was ("jumping off point" not "do your work for me"), what level (how basic) the questions we are looking for are ("academics, students"), etc.

ACuriousMind

@BernardMeurer You would say pretty much what I said - the definition of $\lim_{x\to \infty}\rho(x) = 0$ implies that for 2 there is an M such that $\lvert \rho(x) -0\rvert < 2$, so that $\rho$ can only be larger or equal to 2 on $[1,M]$. So since $\rho(1) = 2$, either $\rho(1)$ is the maximum or it is in $[1,M]$. By the extreme value theorem, $\rho$ attains a maximum on that interval, and since it is definitely larger than any value on $(M,\infty)$, this is a global maximum. QED.

@heather ...and what is the actual question I'm supposed to answer?

heather

@ACuriousMind, what is in bold; "how much freedom are we willing to grant users in deviating from the goals of this site?"

ACuriousMind

@heather The obvious answer is "none", and I don't see how it could be any other way.

If we decide, as a matter of policy, that some sorts of questions are allowed even though they run counter to the "goals", then haven't we effectively declared that those questions are the goal of this site?

heather

@ACuriousMind, really? Physics.SE has allowed stuff that might not be considered in-line with the goals of the site before.

Bernard Meurer

@heather You can't say:
1. We will walk non-stop to the top of the mountain
2. You are allowed to stop sometimes

@heather The moment you give leeway to something that is a "goal" or "law" what is in that leeway becomes embedded in the goal, and now you've lost the original will of the goal-set

heather

11:21 PM

@BernardMeurer, very true, but what if we said:

1. we want to keep walking non-stop to the top of the mountain

2. under x set of circumstances, though, you may stop

that is I think more analogous.

Bernard Meurer

@heather Then you're not walking non-stop :)

heather

what i mean is, the keyword "want" is important.

ACuriousMind

@heather Read my question. Sure, there are individual cases in which we might decide that the policies don't cover them, or lead to undesirable outcomes. But you cannot declare in an abstract setting that questions of type X are counter to the goal of the site but are allowed anyway, because that for all intents and purposes makes questions of type X part of the goal of the site.

Bernard Meurer

@ACuriousMind Exactly

heather

Hmm, these are interesting points.

Let's see, to quote @Jim:

"The second question we should ask ourselves is "How much freedom are we willing to grant users in deviating from the goals and ideals of this site?" If the site's goals are to make it a place for professional physicists to ask/answer about research-level physics, how much leeway should we give for users to ask more basic questions?
This answer needs to be weighed with how much any amount of deviation will detract from the ability of our site to live up to the goals we agree on. It also serves to provide necessary background and understanding so that everyone can be on the same logical page…

@ACuriousMind, would you still think the same, reading the above? @Jim words it much better than I do.

ACuriousMind

11:30 PM

@heather You need to look at the hypothetical that Jim's answer considers: if the site's goals are to make it a place for professional physicists to ask/answer about research-level question is not what the top answer says we are.

heather

@ACuriousMind, but doesn't the general principle stand?

ACuriousMind

@heather What general principle?

heather

@ACuriousMind, the general idea behind Jim's answer?

ACuriousMind

@heather I'm afraid I don't know what you mean.

I didn't really agree with this answer when it was written, and I don't really agree with it now

And I sure as hell don't see the "general principle" behind it.

heather

@ACuriousMind, sorry, I'm using kind of poor wording here. I mean that Jim's answer provides specifics/examples, but in general it is saying we should ask this question, and I'm asking doesn't that question still make some sense to ask?

ACuriousMind

11:34 PM

@heather It's saying we should ask a question which I have argued is a meaningless question (either something is our goal or not, what purpose could allowing questions that don't serve our goals possibly serve?).

heather

@ACuriousMind, huh, okay. I guess I see your point. It made a lot of sense when I read it, but now this conversation makes me think it doesn't make much sense.

should I ask the question that is next on the list? Should I delete this question? Should I write an answer, saying "There is no leeway, the goals are the goals?"

should I do none of the above?

GPhys

I should really zero out the velocity of the center of mass in this simulation

ACuriousMind

@heather 1. Next on what list? 2. That depends on whether or not you think you will receive useful answers to this question. (Obviously I'd argue for deletion) 3. Looks rather odd if you write it yourself now, but if you leave the question up I'll write something to that effect.

heather

@ACuriousMind, Jim's list, the next question is "What types/topics/formats of questions would be actively harmful towards meeting the goals/ideals of the site?"

@DanielSank, hello =)

DanielSank

@heather hi

What are y'all talking about?

ACuriousMind

11:39 PM

@heather Why do you think Jim's list of questions is something that we need to ask this urgently?

I have this feeling that you decided you want to do something for the site without stopping to consider why you want to do it.

heather

@ACuriousMind, well, the last question, what are the goals of this site, has been up for a bit, and an answer has been pretty well agreed upon, and so I thought it was a good time to ask the next question.

DanielSank

@heather For the record, I think that entire meta post was a massive distraction from the main issue, which is how to fix the homework policy.

It's fun to talk about the point of the site, but I think it's also kind of useless.

ACuriousMind

@heather Why? What purpose do you pursue in asking these questions?

DanielSank

Emphasis on "kind of".

heather

@ACuriousMind, I'm not the only one who thought "these questions" were a good idea, I'm just going to throw that out there.

ACuriousMind

11:43 PM

@heather That's not an answer.

DanielSank

The chain of meta posts that lead to that "what's the point of this site" post is a total mess.

Not a single one of the precursors made any sense.

In fact, most of them didn't ask a well defined question.

That caused so much lack of focus and confusion that we wound up with this "what is the point of our site" post. It's really a mess.

So, again, I give you what I think is the only focused post on the homework policy on this site:

28

Q: Should we rename the homework policy?

The homework policy is a constant source of confusion for new (and sometimes established) users. We see this confusion, for example, when users respond to closures based on the homework policy by defending their post with "This is not a homework problem", or similar. Some users have even been con...

discussion tags questions homework

heather

@ACuriousMind, my answer would be, Jim's meta post made sense, multiple people expressed support of it (including myself) and so I asked the questions suggested.

ACuriousMind

I always agree with you @DanielSank until you promote that post as a solution. I don't think it's the solution, because people use the "homework" close reason for more than one single specific close reason. Renaming it will just rename the proxy people use for closing questions for these varied reason.

DanielSank

It is too bad that propositions which would certainly improve the homework policy have not been implemented because those who could actually do the implementation seem to be waiting for a perfect solution.

This violates a major rule in the software community: Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

@ACuriousMind It's an improvement, not a final solution.

ACuriousMind

@heather You have not yet explained to me how it made sense. In fact, you agreed when I pointed out that the second question is rather meaningless.

DanielSank

11:47 PM

I find rejection of improvement on the grounds that it's imperfect dismaying.

heather

@DanielSank, how could we even get that improvement to be implemented?

DanielSank

@heather The mods would have to update the close reason etc.

heather

@ACuriousMind, originally, Jim's explanation made sense, and now I'm wondering if it actually does. You asked for the reason I asked the questions, and I gave it, I'm now wondering if I have been wrong to do so, which of course is your point. But when I read it, my thought process was: this seems more step-by-step than what has been going on so far. This seems like this will work, by providing a more specific foundation for questions about homework policy.

Further, it seemed I was not the only one who thought this!

ACuriousMind

@heather I'm not accusing you of anything, I just want to understand the post. I can't answer a meta post I don't understand!

DanielSank

@ACuriousMind Also, I said it was a focused post, not a solution.

There are two problems:

1) The homework close reason and associated documentation is very confusing, as explained in my meta post.

ACuriousMind

11:52 PM

@DanielSank That's true. It does focus on a specific issue, and it does that well.

DanielSank

2) People use "homework" as a catch-all.

Those are separate problems.

@ACuriousMind Yes, and I think it gives an obvious path forward for improvement.

Despite that, we've done on this ridiculous path of confusing meta posts which wound up culminating in navel-gazing about our mission in life :)

(which is fun)

ACuriousMind

You know, this kind of slipped my mind. I will inquire why we didn't do what you suggest there thus far and get back to you, okay?

DanielSank

@ACuriousMind Sure. I already talked about this with DZ and he basically played "watch me make you chase your tail" with me for an hour.

ACuriousMind

However, I think that "problem-solving" is not a good name (as expressing in the comment there)

DanielSank

Probably not on purpose. Sorry. That was my experience though.

@ACuriousMind I changed it! Read the post!

ACuriousMind

11:58 PM

Ah, yes

DanielSank

@ACuriousMind I didn't update it perfectly consistently though.

Feel free to edit!

Yay for collaboration.

ACuriousMind

Fair enough, I didn't see that you edited it since I last read it.

Transcript for