Comments on: I can has [more inside] indicator on the user activity / posts page?

I can has [more inside] indicator on the user activity / posts page?

finite — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 01:27:06 -0800

A simple feature request.

By: sveskemus

sveskemus — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 01:31:18 -0800

Yes?

By: sveskemus

sveskemus — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 01:32:17 -0800

Oh, it's in the title.

By: sveskemus

sveskemus — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 01:32:37 -0800

I approve of this pony.

By: grouse

grouse — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 03:07:59 -0800

Surely if you've favorited or commented on the thread, you already know it has [more inside]?

Unless you meant user contacts, in which case, carry on.

By: tellurian

tellurian — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 05:03:06 -0800

It's not that simple a request, it may require a Subgroup of Finite Index, otherwise known as (I learnt today), a Cox-Zucker machine.

By: tellurian

tellurian — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 05:03:46 -0800

But hey, I'm all for it.

By: Meatbomb

Meatbomb — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 05:18:15 -0800

I think there should be more inside of everything, all the time. More outside, too - an infinite supply of it, reaching the singularity of cosmic unity.

By: Faint of Butt

Faint of Butt — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 06:40:22 -0800

tellurian, that is the worst name for an algorithm I've ever heard. I love it.

By: puke & cry

puke & cry — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 06:45:51 -0800

Cox-Zucker? That's awesome.

By: flapjax at midnite

flapjax at midnite — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 07:37:14 -0800

Nothing is simple. Everything's complicated. The world is full of lousy Cox-Zuckers who make everything complicated.

By: gleuschk

gleuschk — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 07:47:27 -0800

I have it on good authority that Cox and Zucker were admitted as grad students to Princeton in precisely the hope that they would someday collaborate. This kind of forethought is why Princeton is Princeton.

By: jmd82

jmd82 — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 08:06:31 -0800

I really hope the Cox-Zucker vibrates.

By: Abiezer

Abiezer — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 08:12:54 -0800

I thought Cox-Zucker were refuted by Puller and Mileg and later separately by Hugh Mustbefuckin and Joe King.

By: quin

quin — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 08:25:36 -0800

I think there should be more inside of everything,

I see that you subscribe to the Russian Matryoshka Doll model of the universe. It's an interesting theory that one... that inside every universe is a smaller cuter version of itself, these nest recursively until, as the numbers suggest, that there is a perfectly small, infinitely adorable universe that nothing is capable of escaping from.

It probably looks like a baby duck or a bunny or something.

By: breezeway

breezeway — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 09:43:37 -0800

The Cox-Zucker team has repeatedly refused to work with Drew Peacock, citing lack of motivation and production delays.

By: [more inside]

[more inside] — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 09:48:17 -0800

I think it's a great idea. Also, I could use the work.

By: cortex

cortex — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 10:18:46 -0800

I am become subgroup of finite index, Zucker of Cox.

By: yhbc

yhbc — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 11:53:48 -0800

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

By: languagehat

languagehat — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 12:00:17 -0800

Any relation to the Bouquette-O'Cox theorem?

By: cowbellemoo

cowbellemoo — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 12:21:51 -0800

I just want it known that our ubiquitous use of lolcat language for feature requests is great. I would like this trend to continue in bureaucratic and diplomatic style manuals. "I can has debt releef?" "I can has new cover for teepeess reeport?"

By: dgaicun

dgaicun — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 12:39:41 -0800

A simple feature request: all threads should automatically close after 100 comments.

Close your eyes. Can you imagine?

By: grouse

grouse — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:09:43 -0800

I thought Cox-Zucker were refuted by Puller and Mileg and later separately by Hugh Mustbefuckin and Joe King.

The Cox–Zucker article is real. Only $32 for the Cox–Zucker PDF.

By: arto

arto — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 20:26:23 -0800

Same as in town.