3 ms·

.999 wasn't really a flame topic is it? Some people learned stuff they didnt know about infinity. Others presented fairly good arguments for .999... != 1 and we

by ErrantX 17y ago

.999 wasn't really a flame topic is it? Some people learned stuff they didnt know about infinity. Others presented fairly good arguments for .999... != 1 and we spent time disproving that. ANd others introduced Hyperreal numbers whihc some hadn't heard of. No one got angry or passionate or flamey as I saw it... the topic never made it much onto the main page and was a nice discussion. Im not disagree with the sentiment "avoid flame topics" - I just dont think that is a good example. A better one would be the current TC article on the main page (and all the boring meta discussion on "ban techcrunch" and flaming about pg & ma being buddies).

rms 17y ago
Right, it wasn't a flame war here, I was referring to the 400 page version on PhysOrg. We could handle the topic -- by the end of the PhysOrg thread (I only read the last page) they're calling each other retards over the definition of continuous for limits. A topic that gets ugly here sometimes and where no one ever has anything new to say is genes, nationality, and IQ. Meta discussion is a very different type of flame topic. It's also been extremely important to defining the character of this board so seperating it MetaFilter style is a drastic step. How can we discourage metatalk when it is annoying but allow it when it is interesting?
- ErrantX 17y ago
  Ok yes so the thread was a flamewar - but the way I saw the topic was as a conversation starter (rather than just post an Ask HN thread). I doubt many people read past the first page :) But I take your point. In terms of meta discussion; all that is fine. I just mean it should be considered "non gratis" to bring up flamey meta topics. Like Ban TC and so forth. It's been discussed a billion times before and always leads to flaming. EDIT: I also love the rule that says if you've been here for less than a year dont moan about thinks going reddity - that's another pet-hate meta topic of mine :(
- tokenadult 17y ago
  A topic that gets ugly here sometimes and where no one ever has anything new to say is genes, nationality, and IQ. Respectfully agreeing, but sharpening the definition, I would say that the topic rarely gets ugly here on HN (it gets terribly ugly most of the time elsewhere online) and that I personally had a lot of new things to say on that topic the first few times I posted on it here. I do research on that topic http://learninfreedom.org/iqbooks.html http://learninfreedom.org/iqbooks.html that most other online participants have never bothered to do.

by ErrantX 17y ago

rms 17y ago

Right, it wasn't a flame war here, I was referring to the 400 page version on PhysOrg. We could handle the topic -- by the end of the PhysOrg thread (I only read the last page) they're calling each other retards over the definition of continuous for limits. A topic that gets ugly here sometimes and where no one ever has anything new to say is genes, nationality, and IQ. Meta discussion is a very different type of flame topic. It's also been extremely important to defining the character of this board so seperating it MetaFilter style is a drastic step. How can we discourage metatalk when it is annoying but allow it when it is interesting?

ErrantX 17y ago
Ok yes so the thread was a flamewar - but the way I saw the topic was as a conversation starter (rather than just post an Ask HN thread). I doubt many people read past the first page :) But I take your point. In terms of meta discussion; all that is fine. I just mean it should be considered "non gratis" to bring up flamey meta topics. Like Ban TC and so forth. It's been discussed a billion times before and always leads to flaming. EDIT: I also love the rule that says if you've been here for less than a year dont moan about thinks going reddity - that's another pet-hate meta topic of mine :(
tokenadult 17y ago
A topic that gets ugly here sometimes and where no one ever has anything new to say is genes, nationality, and IQ. Respectfully agreeing, but sharpening the definition, I would say that the topic rarely gets ugly here on HN (it gets terribly ugly most of the time elsewhere online) and that I personally had a lot of new things to say on that topic the first few times I posted on it here. I do research on that topic http://learninfreedom.org/iqbooks.html http://learninfreedom.org/iqbooks.html that most other online participants have never bothered to do.