5 ms·

No, not every public information is written for everyone. Just because arxiv papers are publically available does not mean that a posted string theory paper sho

No, not every public information is written for everyone. Just because arxiv papers are publically available does not mean that a posted string theory paper should be written for you so that you can understand it (or I for that matter).

gdy 5y ago
Are you suggesting that the substance of the accusation is as complex and cannot be explained without years of preparation?
- cycomanic 5y ago
  I'm simply refuting the statement that just because something is public it is aimed at everyone. That statement is clearly wrong.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - gdy 5y ago
    Well, in the context of this discussion I interpret 'written for everyone' as 'author was aware that everyone can read this and still wrote what he wrote'. An author of a paper on string theory published on arxive is aware that everyone can read it and almost no one will understand that except for a few from the intended audience. He or she is fine with that and so does everyone else. The authors of the resignation letter are similarly aware of the publicity, but decided to go ahead with their vague and unsubstantiated accusations and their appeal not to believe if the accused party says anything. They are aware of the effect and are fine with that. Some people are not.
znpy 5y ago
Nice example, arxiv papers (and any decent paper in general) contains an abstract to provide context about the contents of the papers as well as references to other papers cited within. Arxiv papers might not be written for me now, but if I got interested in a paper (and had time to spare, of course) I would probably have most of the content I need to at least grasp the general content of the paper. Thanks for the example, it fits perfectly.
- cycomanic 5y ago
  No offense, but you don't seem to have read many specialized scientific articles. The time investment to even grasp the general idea of very specialized papers would be significantly longer than the investment you need to make to become a respected member of the rust community and apply for the next mod-team. Then you could also ask the members of the previous mod-team about the specifics of their complaints. Maybe you are right, maybe the example fits perfectly.
  - znpy 5y ago
    That sounds like low-key elitism to support your point. My point is that arxiv papers (like most papers) come with an abstract to set the stage and have references to other papers cited therein.
    - cycomanic 5y ago
      Apologies, you are correct that was a snarkish response. I stand by my point though, we don't have any right to see "details" of the accusation. In particular the moderator team seems to resign not because of the particular case but because of structural issues. That is what they pointing towards. Now regarding the structural issues, I actually could find very scarce information about the governance of Rust. I certainly could not find any information on how the core-team gets selected and what the processes are around being added or removed from the team. I also did not find much about their duties. So in that sense there seems to be verifiable information about lack of transparency (if not accountability).

gdy 5y ago

Are you suggesting that the substance of the accusation is as complex and cannot be explained without years of preparation?

cycomanic 5y ago
I'm simply refuting the statement that just because something is public it is aimed at everyone. That statement is clearly wrong.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- gdy 5y ago
  Well, in the context of this discussion I interpret 'written for everyone' as 'author was aware that everyone can read this and still wrote what he wrote'. An author of a paper on string theory published on arxive is aware that everyone can read it and almost no one will understand that except for a few from the intended audience. He or she is fine with that and so does everyone else. The authors of the resignation letter are similarly aware of the publicity, but decided to go ahead with their vague and unsubstantiated accusations and their appeal not to believe if the accused party says anything. They are aware of the effect and are fine with that. Some people are not.

znpy 5y ago

Nice example, arxiv papers (and any decent paper in general) contains an abstract to provide context about the contents of the papers as well as references to other papers cited within. Arxiv papers might not be written for me now, but if I got interested in a paper (and had time to spare, of course) I would probably have most of the content I need to at least grasp the general content of the paper. Thanks for the example, it fits perfectly.

cycomanic 5y ago
No offense, but you don't seem to have read many specialized scientific articles. The time investment to even grasp the general idea of very specialized papers would be significantly longer than the investment you need to make to become a respected member of the rust community and apply for the next mod-team. Then you could also ask the members of the previous mod-team about the specifics of their complaints. Maybe you are right, maybe the example fits perfectly.
- znpy 5y ago
  That sounds like low-key elitism to support your point. My point is that arxiv papers (like most papers) come with an abstract to set the stage and have references to other papers cited therein.
  - cycomanic 5y ago
    Apologies, you are correct that was a snarkish response. I stand by my point though, we don't have any right to see "details" of the accusation. In particular the moderator team seems to resign not because of the particular case but because of structural issues. That is what they pointing towards. Now regarding the structural issues, I actually could find very scarce information about the governance of Rust. I certainly could not find any information on how the core-team gets selected and what the processes are around being added or removed from the team. I also did not find much about their duties. So in that sense there seems to be verifiable information about lack of transparency (if not accountability).