Recent submissions

Comment · 26 days ago
That reminds me of this paper:

Chow, T. Y. (2008). A beginner’s guide to forcing (arXiv:0712.1320). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.0712.1320

> “All mathematicians are familiar with the concept of an open research problem. I propose the less familiar concept of an open exposition problem. Solving an open exposition problem means explaining a mathematical subject in a way that renders it totally perspicuous. Every step should be motivated and clear; ideally, students should feel that they could have arrived at the results themselves. The proofs should be “natural” in Donald Newman’s sense [13]:

> This term . . . is introduced to mean not having any ad hoc constructions or brilliancies. A “natural” proof, then, is one which proves itself, one available to the “common mathematician in the streets.””

Comment · 1 month ago
Comment · 1 month ago
I've read a fair amount of Foucault and while I could guess, what specifically were you thinking of?
Comment · 1 month ago
Responding to you generally and not to this comment.

I want to thank you for explaining economic principles even if the OP doesn't understand them. As someone who has less econ background then they'd like — your explanations are clear.

Comment · 1 month ago
Until the terms start including "mass arbitration" provisions limiting consumers ability to even use the psuesocourts the companies force.
Comment · 1 month ago
Comment · 6 months ago
Comment · 7 months ago
Comment · 7 months ago
I never knew the name of that device.

Thanks

Comment · 7 months ago
This is such a shame. It was the single best code pairing tool for the longest time and did not rely on mere screen sharing.
Comment · 8 months ago
I've read this before. The first time you posted this.

Your obsession with Obama and ignorance of current events are well known to me and everyone else who reads this site regularly.

Please make an effort to apply your purported critical thinking sklls and claimed integrity rather than reposting one article repeatedly.

Being unwilling to differentiate between two obiously different forms of badness—both in kind and in quantity—is intentional ignorance and is antithetical to the curious conversation expected of this community.

Comment · 8 months ago
... and if you can't differentiate between the badness of Obama and the badness of Trump you have neither integrity nor critical thinking skills.
Comment · 10 months ago
I appreciated several of these quotes and added them to my own personal tracker. Thanks for linking this.

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton