Honestly, I'm beginning to wonder if it is actually an experiment in the extent to which the scientific community will accept or at least consider ludicrous claims because they come from an authority figure.

EDIT: And I'm not saying that these claims shouldn't be tested. But it would be interesting to see the way people react. Hesitation, for example.

I've actually switched from reading HN to mostly reading Reddit.

The level of discourse increases quite a bit in subreddits, and you can usually find good discussions on even obscure interests. On the other hand, its pretty rare for the level of discourse to get to the level of HN. But level of discourse isn't the only quality of Reddit.

I think the main reason for me switching to mostly reading Reddit was because I found it very comforting to read r/atheism (my family is very Christian, mostly fundamentalist and I was a closeted Atheist). I suspect that emotional support is what a lot of people go to reddit for.

I think it really depends on the subreddit. Once you start getting into speciality subreddits, the level of the discourse increases.

Speaking in your head is called subvocalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subvocalization) and many forms of speed reading get the learner to eliminate it.

Subvocalization has several draw backs. One is that it is very bad at multitasking (eg. try reading this comment while counting).

It turns out that when you are subvocalizing, you send tiny impulses to your throat as though you are speaking, just not strong enough to do so. So it is possible to eavesdrop on subvocalization (NASA has experimented with this -- see wiki article).

Some people naturally don't subvocalize because of learning disabilities; they usually have trouble writing and speaking because they have to translate their thoughts into English.

Of course the idea that you are thinking in a language is rather terrifying. Consider how it is moulding your thoughts. The idea that language effects your thoughts is called the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. (Some people have tried to make better languages to think in, see lojban.)

I find it interesting to note that when I program, I think, at least partially, in that language -- I've even noticed that I attach sounds to some operators in C. I also notice that the way I think varies depending on the area of math I'm working in: when I am doing algebra or calculus, it's a combination of subvocalized math and visualisation of formulas, whereas complex analysis is often almost entirely visual and set theoretic topology often is neither subvocalized or visualised.

/rant

I gather that subvocalisation also is accompanied by eye movement and some facial muscle activity and that this is used by mentalists like Derren Brown. For example the way the eyes look can show if one is thinking about something in the future or past (although it doesn't work on everyone and I think is culture dependent).

If Sapir-Whorf holds true then we should see those using a specific language excelling in specific areas shouldn't we? Could this perhaps account for some of the stereotypical characteristics we ascribe to different nationalities.

Subvocalization is and interesting idea, but it's more about how to encoding information into your brain, how about the decoding process? For instance when you write an English essay can you finish it without a speaking voice in your head?

And oh yes, we all think in formulas when doing mathematics. I have problem vocalizing formulas with Greek letters to others but I can quickly write them down. I think it's because Greek letters were never officially taught in China.

Also, by forcing people to invest time like this, they build customer loyalty. The customers don't want to admit that they were wrong.

On the other hand, this could backfire if someone gets fed up. It only builds loyalty if the customers tolerate this abuse -- because then they need to explain to themselves why they did.

But its not just the size of the market... Windows machines are more likely to come into contact with another windows machine than macs are to come in contact with other macs. Thus a mac virus will spread much more slowly...

This is why homogeneity is dangerous. The more diversity an ecosystem has, the less vulnerable it is to viri, whether we're talking about crops or computer networks.

So then sites like this: cupidtino.com are really bad for Mac owners. Gotcha! :)

I'm not sure the three wishes chosen are the best possible.

Obviously, ``Five more wishes, please.'' Would be nice, but the Jinn obviously would have refused.

Something that would have broken entropy would have been nice, though. A battery that can give infinite current...

A spaceship would also have been a good choice.

"Name anything, uchuusen that blings..."

_We_ might ourselves be a resources. A novel life form.

We'll make great pets!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpkmtweNQ-U

And the result is that a lot of experts go and make their own wikis, because they can't merge their content into Wikipedia. Which kind of defeats the whole centralisation advantage of Wikipedia.

Interesting. You're the second recommendation I've been given for Munkres. This list of recommended books in topology: http://www.math.cornell.edu/~hatcher/Other/topologybooks.pdf suggests some other books over it, however.

Personally, I've just started reading Hocking & Young (Shocking and Fun!) and it seems quite good so far.

I've made some substantial progress in _Counterexamples in topology_ and it's really good... It's not really a textbook, just a thing booklet that goes over general topology, then goes through a lot of examples and provides all these really nice charts of topological spaces based on properties. I actually made a graph, mostly based off it: http://christopherolah.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/compactness-...

Oh, and Needham's _Visual Complex Analysis_ (in list) is awesome! Best math book I've ever read.

Munkres is okay – pretty readable, gets the job done, has enough interesting problems. I like Hatcher’s book though, so his recommendations (your first link) are probably solid.