Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: You advocate a ________ approach to calendar refor (Score 2) 209

http://qntm.org/calendar

You advocate a

( ) overly simplistic

approach to calendar reform. Your idea will not work. Here is why:

( ) having months of different lengths is irritating
( ) having one or two days per year which are part of no month is stupid

Specifically, your plan fails to account for:

( ) humans
( ) rational hatred for arbitrary change
( ) unpopularity of weird new month and day names

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

( ) nobody is about to renumber every event in history
( ) good luck trying to move the Fourth of July
(x) the history of calendar reform is horrifically complicated and no amount of further calendar reform can make it simpler

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

( ) sorry, but I don't think it would work
( ) this is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it

Comment: Cochlear implants don't work for everyone (Score 1) 510

by billyswong (#46709689) Attached to: How Cochlear Implants Are Being Blamed For Killing Deaf Culture

Not everyone's issue can be saved by cochlear implants. So deaf culture won't go extinct that easily.

On the other hand, cochlear implants are not perfect. People wearing it don't hear human-speaking as well as normal people. This is a more pressing issue - deaves are stuck in a bad expectations.

Comment: Re:Time to lose Daylight Savings Time (Score 0) 310

by billyswong (#46443461) Attached to: Daylight Saving Time ...

Men, change your schedule, change your office hour, change whatever you like, but don't change the clock okay?

Since Daylight Saving Time is decided by the government, the government can also change its office hour twice a year instead. Then other corporations will follow suit and things will work out in a way much much better.

Comment: Re:citation quotient (Score 1) 308

by billyswong (#45651841) Attached to: Physicist Peter Higgs: No University Would Employ Me Today

1. Supposingly peer review should block such kind of "trivial paper".

2. The formula can be adjusted to (a+1)/(b+1) or something similar. Then the initial score will be (0+1)/(3+1)=1/4, while the traded score will be 11/14

Or maybe even harsher, weigh others' cites against how many citations are there. if a paper cites me, but also cite 49 other papers, then that cite only gives me 1/50 score.

User hostile.

Working...