4 ms·

That's weird, why does Stephen Wolfram gets some sort of special treatment here that nobody else seems to get - including people that are subject to much more c

That's weird, why does Stephen Wolfram gets some sort of special treatment here that nobody else seems to get - including people that are subject to much more common and intense criticism (just the other day there were people bitching about Trudeau, for example - or let's take Elon Musk who is an asshat (IMHO, YMMV), is discussing that off-topic when it comes to how he manages Twitter?). The question "is Stephen Wolfram being taken seriously by the mathematics community?" seems relevant as a question to gauge whether one should spend time reading a very long article. edit: an even more relevant analogy - is Mochizuki's big ego irrelevant in a discussion about whether his proof of the abc conjecture, that nobody understands and which he refuses to explain properly, is correct?

pvg 2y ago
Because it's highly repetitive and uninteresting, especially in the context of an article that is not about Wolfram. The mod exhortations are a consequence of the repetitiveness rather than some special carveout. Other things that get that repetitive get similar appeals.
- Tainnor 2y ago
  90% of content on HN is repetitive. "Unit tests suck", "managers forcing return to the office are assholes", "Fauci lied about Covid", ... I've never seen a single of these things being called out. This is an article about a proof Stephen Wolfram claims to have discovered. Somebody further upthread already mentioned that this may not actually be true, or that the credit at least should be shared.
  - pvg 2y ago
    90% of everything is repetitive. The generic analogies method is not really that useful in discussing the specific thing you asked about. I've never seen a single of these things being called out. Happens all the time plus many repetitive things constantly get moderated away by users and moderators. The goal is a less boring messageboard, but it's aspirational rather than perfectly achievable. Edit: Ok, fine, let's do analogies. Imagine Elon Musk started writing long, interesting, researched articles about some topic, say, Chinese history. If every such article got flooded with discussions about who does and does not like Elon Musk and by how much, those would start getting modbleatings too. This is what happened except it wasn't Elon Musk but Stephen Wolfram and it wasn't Chinese History and it started about a decade ago (as you can see from the comment dates).
    - Tainnor 2y ago
      Maybe the reason why people keep calling out Stephen Wolfram (and have been doing so for a decade) is because he has a history of making grandiose claims that do not always withstand closer scrutiny? I'm not claiming that Stephen Wolfram is an idiot or that nothing he writes is of value, but his ego clearly does influence his judgement so it makes no sense to me to claim that it is off-topic (in the way that, say, his love life or his opinion on abortion would be). Also this: > Happens all the time plus many repetitive things constantly get moderated away by users and moderators. The goal is a less boring messageboard, but it's aspirational rather than perfectly achievable. No sorry, I've been on HN during the pandemic and I was this close to quitting it forever. These things do not get called out in any consistent fashion for many topics. I'm pretty sure a message board for people interested in technology can handle a couple of "Wolfram sucks" comments a year better than literally hundreds of angry rants about a health advisor that doesn't even have any relevance to anyone who isn't from the US.
      - pvg 2y ago
        Maybe the reason why people keep calling out It's not about the reason, it's about the repetitiveness. The boringness of the repetitiveness is one of the organizing principles of HN. Also, people don't actually 'keep calling out' this stuff - these moderator interventions, specifically in the Wolfram case, have been surprisingly effective. Many Wolfram-y articles have neither moderation intervention or bad tangents. These things do not get called out in any consistent fashion for many topics. You don't see everything, neither do other forum participants, including the moderators. The fact that, collectively, some boring and repetitive stuff is missed doesn't imply we can all use more boring, repetitive stuff.
        Tainnor 2y ago
        > You don't see everything, neither do other forum participants, including the moderators. The stuff that I mentioned was really hard to miss. The question OP asked was, essentially, "is Stephen Wolfram actively contributing to the mathematical community?". If you really think that this is off-topic then... I don't know what to say.
  - queuebert 2y ago
    [flagged]

pvg 2y ago

Because it's highly repetitive and uninteresting, especially in the context of an article that is not about Wolfram. The mod exhortations are a consequence of the repetitiveness rather than some special carveout. Other things that get that repetitive get similar appeals.

Tainnor 2y ago
90% of content on HN is repetitive. "Unit tests suck", "managers forcing return to the office are assholes", "Fauci lied about Covid", ... I've never seen a single of these things being called out. This is an article about a proof Stephen Wolfram claims to have discovered. Somebody further upthread already mentioned that this may not actually be true, or that the credit at least should be shared.
- pvg 2y ago
  90% of everything is repetitive. The generic analogies method is not really that useful in discussing the specific thing you asked about. I've never seen a single of these things being called out. Happens all the time plus many repetitive things constantly get moderated away by users and moderators. The goal is a less boring messageboard, but it's aspirational rather than perfectly achievable. Edit: Ok, fine, let's do analogies. Imagine Elon Musk started writing long, interesting, researched articles about some topic, say, Chinese history. If every such article got flooded with discussions about who does and does not like Elon Musk and by how much, those would start getting modbleatings too. This is what happened except it wasn't Elon Musk but Stephen Wolfram and it wasn't Chinese History and it started about a decade ago (as you can see from the comment dates).
  - Tainnor 2y ago
    Maybe the reason why people keep calling out Stephen Wolfram (and have been doing so for a decade) is because he has a history of making grandiose claims that do not always withstand closer scrutiny? I'm not claiming that Stephen Wolfram is an idiot or that nothing he writes is of value, but his ego clearly does influence his judgement so it makes no sense to me to claim that it is off-topic (in the way that, say, his love life or his opinion on abortion would be). Also this: > Happens all the time plus many repetitive things constantly get moderated away by users and moderators. The goal is a less boring messageboard, but it's aspirational rather than perfectly achievable. No sorry, I've been on HN during the pandemic and I was this close to quitting it forever. These things do not get called out in any consistent fashion for many topics. I'm pretty sure a message board for people interested in technology can handle a couple of "Wolfram sucks" comments a year better than literally hundreds of angry rants about a health advisor that doesn't even have any relevance to anyone who isn't from the US.
    - pvg 2y ago
      Maybe the reason why people keep calling out It's not about the reason, it's about the repetitiveness. The boringness of the repetitiveness is one of the organizing principles of HN. Also, people don't actually 'keep calling out' this stuff - these moderator interventions, specifically in the Wolfram case, have been surprisingly effective. Many Wolfram-y articles have neither moderation intervention or bad tangents. These things do not get called out in any consistent fashion for many topics. You don't see everything, neither do other forum participants, including the moderators. The fact that, collectively, some boring and repetitive stuff is missed doesn't imply we can all use more boring, repetitive stuff.
      - Tainnor 2y ago
        > You don't see everything, neither do other forum participants, including the moderators. The stuff that I mentioned was really hard to miss. The question OP asked was, essentially, "is Stephen Wolfram actively contributing to the mathematical community?". If you really think that this is off-topic then... I don't know what to say.
- queuebert 2y ago
  [flagged]