I'm not suggesting to move the reply action (or for that matter the vote action) to make them more accessible, but instead to place vote and comment information closer on the UI for easier digestion. Sorry if this wasn't clear before.
galilette
joined 2 years ago
Upvoted this just to see the said animation anyone?
I use em dash for "branching out" -- and close it with a second one if I want to branch back in, or leave it to a natural closure with a period. I only use semicolon if neither comma nor period feels right.
hey, all good points. I was just trying to say that if one had to pursue logical consistency (which is my perception of the theme of the entire thread), then countability becomes a math problem.
also is this not contradictory? or do you mean correspond as in each number can be assigned to an integer?
no, and yes
One argument for moving space to a specific hand is so space is assigned to the vowel hand. If you are on a layout with definitive vowel / consonant hand split, then the theory goes that it is more frequent for words (at least in English) to begin with a consonant, and separately, also end with a consonant. By having space on the vowel hand, you are promoting hand alternation.
Personally I have vowels on the left hand but still use right thumb for space. I do have 'e' on left thumb, but right hand thumb has been a habit since I learned qwerty on a mechanical typewriter..
Thanks for the clarification, I see you are making a distinction between the symbol 7 and the value 7. Then yes I was talking about the value.
At the risk of drifting off topic, I would still argue that integer values are closer to "countable" than "uncountable" -- in fact the mathematical notion of "countable" is defined as having one to one correspondence to integers, and is based on the intuition of integers representing the counting of objects. I do concede though that people have different intuitions and intuition is a tricky thing (I myself would consider the value of 2/3 or 3.14 to be closer to being "uncountable", but mathematically the set of rational numbers is considered countable, intuitively you just need to count in unit of 1/3 or 0.01, respectively)
Not sure I follow: isn't the value of three just "three", and therefore, "the value of three is less than the value of five" reduces to "three is less than five"? My point was that even though integers represent countable objects -- and therefore would have fitted fewer/more better according to the "rule" -- no one in a math context would say "three is fewer than five". The relationship represented by "<" is simply pronounced as "less than" without much concern to the "rule".
Integers are countable too. I think in math one just pronounces < as 'less than'
I agree. Oxford comma is absolutely necessary to improve flow.
This. It's about explicitly stating the assumptions that will be crucial to the rest of the proof/work/program/whatever, so there will be no misunderstanding going forward. In other words, defining the boundary of the problem to be considered.
While the phenomenon, namely bulk-boundary correspondence, is inspired by topological insulators, the fundamental physics here is rather classical, not quantum. It appears quantamagazine has since updated the title (physics -> physicists), but not the url.
What's interesting here is they were able to verify the bulk topological characters (winding number around the zero of the wave function, ie the vortex) via observational data. In physics it's usually the other way around: the edge phenomenon, that is the edge spectral flow, is easier to measure than the elusive phase winding of the bulk wave function.
Incidentally, the original theory paper from Delplace et al came out right after the physics Nobel prize was awarded to topological physics.
I'm also in camp of "the longer the angrier". Next in the escalation list would be "our ass", followed by "fxxking"