Feature suggestion: One-to-many user thread format
This may seem like I'm rambling but, please bare with me, I think I have some point(s) to make.
-
I've been trying to locate a common ancestor image to the album cover of Gnarls Barkley's single Crazy and the banner of an interesting talk titled Imagination and it's resistance to chance. I think the resemblance is sufficient to suggest one an ancestor exists and it's not just a crazy coincidence. Can anyone help identify it?
-
The same academic conference linked above hosts a fascinating introduction to Intensionality, Invariance, and Univalence. It captures some of the most exciting mathematics going on at the moment. Presumably I should be posting this in ~science tagged as mathematics. Is there some limit at which particular tags become popular enough to warrant their own subtilde? Are there queries users can run to determine tag counts? These questions were prompted by the slight irritating thought of classifying mathematics under science.
-
People could respond to many different parts of this thread since I've written so much. However, the points are slightly related, at least in how I present them. If I were to split them up into separate posts, not only would it add to the noise, each point would lose whatever relation they had. So, I wonder if, much like r/IAMA, could there be a better format for conversations where many users are speaking to a particular individual? An expert or celebrity perhaps. Trying to track all the replies of the main user was always a hassle in those IAMA threads.
If there's interest in such an extension to tildes, I'd like to offer my help in implementing it. That's my main point really and why I posted here.
My example does seem contrived and yet I swear it was a very natural chain of thought to me. I don't think sites like tildes or reddit are designed for these loosely related networks of posts by a single user. That's more twitter and medium's domain. However, I think being able to host that sort of single-user conversation format across multiple topics would strengthen the tilde communities. Most of what I'm thinking of now could be done with custom user tags and tag filtering.
You're right, next step would be to get some visual demo. Maybe I'm trying to solve something that's not a problem. Wouldn't be the first time. I'll think about it. Thanks for such a considerate reply.
Yes. This is exactly the difference I'm getting at. Some submissions are user-centric - the poster often sticks around to answer questions and the subject is secondary to their views on it. Other submissions are subject-centric where the poster is largely irrelevant. I think all social media gets these two types of submissions regardless of what they're designed for. The ~blog idea is great. I was thinking of some way to differentiate the two submission types, partially automatic, partially by user tags, and present them differently. How? I still don't know. :)
Current best practice is to post mostly-unrelated stuff as separate topics, use tags, and if some subject becomes popular enough then @Deimos will make a subtopic for it. You could cross-link if it seems important.
As an alternative, if your post has different parts that are related, then you could post a single top-level topic and then post each part as a top-level comment. The order won't be right unless you change the sort order, but that's the best we can do for now.
Thanks for the univalence lecture. Maybe I'll be able to make it past the second chapter of the Homotopy Type Theory book.
I keep wishing I had more background in algebraic topology (and algebraic geometry). It's hard to find material to learn with, and it's hard to figure out what I don't know until, often, halfway through a textbook.
I've been struggling with the Homotopy Type Theory book too. I found it helped to step back and learn some more type theory and category theory first. The book's beautifully written but maybe lacking in examples for a beginner. Same could be said about many mathematics texts.
Yeah, I did the same thing. Now I'm pretty much research-literate in intuitionistic type theory and some even more exotic typing systems. But category theory texts inevitably get to toposes and fibrations and then I feel stuck again. There's just so much that I'm sure would become clear from a few examples, maybe linking back to analysis, but I haven't found any usable video lectures yet.
How do you know they share a common ancestor and one is not the ancestor of the other? Given the popularity of the song, which is from 2009, my guess would be the lecture from 2019 borrowed the artwork from the album. But that's just a guess.
It could be that simple. I'm curious nonetheless. I tried tineye but that doesn't really work since they're not just photoshopped versions of each other.
The artist for the Gnarls' single is Kam Tang, a UK illustrator.
The concept is fairly common -- a lot like the old Threadless stuff back in the day... but in this case, it looks like the youtube channel copied it :)
/cc @joplin
I really like his style. Thanks for that.
Very cool! Just curious - how did you find the artist? Were they credited somewhere?
Yeah, they’re credited on the CD — so I checked it out on Discogs. :)
Tineye feels like it's for close copies only.
Yandex image search is pretty good at finding "pictures that look like this other picture", so give it a try.