2 ms·

> Did you even read beyond the silly headline? Yes. I'll also refer you to the HN guideline on this manner. You're welcome to disagree with me but you must com

> Did you even read beyond the silly headline? Yes. I'll also refer you to the HN guideline on this manner. You're welcome to disagree with me but you must communicate in good faith and unless you have a very specific reason for thinking I didn't "RTFM" then don't make the accusation. I'm happy to continue discussing, but only on those terms. In fact, I think we're in far more agreement than your tone suggests. But I think you missed the crux of my point: math isn't number crunching

HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
Sheesh - why so touchy?! Your response opened with addressing the headline, which anyone who had "RTFM" (RTFA) would have realized was unrelated to the body of the article. You then veered off into a tangent about the nature of math which again was not addressing the content of the article. The underlying nature article, linked from the posted story, makes it even more clear what is being discussed, with the abstract stating: > This experiment employed an individual differences approach to test the hypothesis that learning modern programming languages resembles second “natural” language learning in adulthood. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-60661-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-60661-8