Timeline for Closure of the Neutrino Detector Question
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 24 at 0:41 | comment | added | BioPhysicist | That's fair. And I agree, reevaluation of the rules is always useful. I can see how being more careful about the engineering closure reason is more helpful overall | |
| Jul 24 at 0:22 | comment | added | rob Mod | Agreed on most points. A habit I have learned (not just here, but elsewhere in my life) is to continuously reevaluate whether some set of rules as written actually corresponds to what I actually want those rules to do. I think there is a way to say that our community won't do your intro QM homework, but we will absolutely point you in the direction of detecting cosmic rays. As another answer now says: if you want to build a radiation detector, physicists will be much more helpful than engineers. | |
| Jul 23 at 17:10 | comment | added | BioPhysicist | Thanks for your reply. I get the intent, and I agree that, looking at the overall question topic, there is a topic that would be nice to have a post about here. I just don't think the post as is really fits the site, and, in this case, I feel like a lot of your arguments could be modified to argue for other things to be on this site, like being more open to working out homework problems. I really feel like it's putting the policy on the back burner in order to push for a useful topic. And maybe there is a place for that and I'm being too strict, but I try not to review in that manner myself. | |
| Jul 23 at 3:30 | history | answered | robMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |