|
|
|
|
|
|
by N2yhWNXQN3k9
300 days ago
|
|
|
The link also contains information of the history of the current understanding? And is a direct summary of current understanding? I guess that contains your constraints for an interesting article (as it includes historical and current references that cover said history). So, what am I missing? Also, I didn't edit the main premise of the comment, as it still contains the phrase "Pretty well understood today", unedited, but whatever. EDIT: I have now removed that phrase as my comment was flagged. I mean, "fuck off" to whoever did that. My original comment had "Pretty well understood today" with the wikpedia link. Stupid shit, imo Community here continually becomes less "don't be a dick" from 2009 and more "fuck you, toe the line" |
|
|
No idea what this conversation is about in general, but these two statements you contrast here are identical. It's just with different values.