Because previewing an entry with forms in it can cause badness. (Yes, I've never actually been in a bar. I think it's funny anyway.)
Sep. 16th, 2004
More meta stuff, I'm afraid
Sep. 16th, 2004 10:19 pmDon't delete stuff. You might want it later. Who knows why? You might.
So, I write a depressing entry as described in my last entry, I decide I don't want it around, I delete it.
Now, the one other time I decided an entry (other than a trivial placeholder entry) had to go, I didn't delete it, I made it private. I won't look at it, I definitely won't look at the comments, but still it's there. Because, after all, I'm a "don't delete stuff" person. I can be worried about deleting the most trivial things. And yet, somehow, yesterday, I decided to *delete* that entry rather than merely privatizing it. Because, I suppose, I didn't want to see it on the front page of my LJ. That's hardly a reason.
And so when now Jon Pinyan goes and tells me that "there was nothing wrong with it" and it was "a good read", I am, of course, thinking, "D'oh!".
Well, I remember most of it anyway. I can reconstruct it to a good approximation. In fact, I already have. Though I've taken this opportunity to edit it a bit, too. Of course I probably have the punctuation wrong - I recall having used a lot of ellipses in the original version, most of which have probably now become periods, and somehow I get the feeling it won't be quite as depressing with periods instead of ellipses, but... :P Regardless, the question is: Of those of you who saw it, should I repost it? And should it be public?
Enough meta. How about that story of how we left Rajesh behind? Nah, I'll leave it out - it's a pretty stupid story anyway. So how about that tedious calculation work Nevard had us do? I was doing it on Wednesday, and I didn't have a calculator with me, so yes, I actually did do a few steps of the Gram-Schmidt process by hand. (Hm, still need to write up a program to do that.) Then eventually I found Chris and borrowed his TI-89 to do the other problems, but... anyway, the final problem, the final answer is an integral. Specifically, 0∫∞(e-x-¼x-½)²e-x dx. I have left it in this form with the following note:
"The calculator refuses to integrate this, for unknown reason. It clearly is elementarily integrable. But if the calculator refuses to do it, so do I."
-Sniffnoy
--
"Did you swallow the phone again?!"
-![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
toreun
So, I write a depressing entry as described in my last entry, I decide I don't want it around, I delete it.
Now, the one other time I decided an entry (other than a trivial placeholder entry) had to go, I didn't delete it, I made it private. I won't look at it, I definitely won't look at the comments, but still it's there. Because, after all, I'm a "don't delete stuff" person. I can be worried about deleting the most trivial things. And yet, somehow, yesterday, I decided to *delete* that entry rather than merely privatizing it. Because, I suppose, I didn't want to see it on the front page of my LJ. That's hardly a reason.
And so when now Jon Pinyan goes and tells me that "there was nothing wrong with it" and it was "a good read", I am, of course, thinking, "D'oh!".
Well, I remember most of it anyway. I can reconstruct it to a good approximation. In fact, I already have. Though I've taken this opportunity to edit it a bit, too. Of course I probably have the punctuation wrong - I recall having used a lot of ellipses in the original version, most of which have probably now become periods, and somehow I get the feeling it won't be quite as depressing with periods instead of ellipses, but... :P Regardless, the question is: Of those of you who saw it, should I repost it? And should it be public?
Enough meta. How about that story of how we left Rajesh behind? Nah, I'll leave it out - it's a pretty stupid story anyway. So how about that tedious calculation work Nevard had us do? I was doing it on Wednesday, and I didn't have a calculator with me, so yes, I actually did do a few steps of the Gram-Schmidt process by hand. (Hm, still need to write up a program to do that.) Then eventually I found Chris and borrowed his TI-89 to do the other problems, but... anyway, the final problem, the final answer is an integral. Specifically, 0∫∞(e-x-¼x-½)²e-x dx. I have left it in this form with the following note:
"The calculator refuses to integrate this, for unknown reason. It clearly is elementarily integrable. But if the calculator refuses to do it, so do I."
-Sniffnoy
--
"Did you swallow the phone again?!"
-
toreun