Does anybody have a reason this particular repo might be of special interest today? It appears to be the methods from something published a decade ago, and has had a handful of commits since then, including yesterday. There's not a ton of stars on the github, but certainly more stars than most scientific methods get.

▲

northlondoner 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Great point. Hope the following add a context that was missing:

Apart from intellectual appeal,

(1) there was a new paper from Google about quantum ergodicity, see https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.10191 . So in general tech community can benefit a lot from understanding ergodicity via this package and see hands on how it is implemented, see Vignette as well, https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/isingLenzMC/vignette...

(2) The repo is part of ergodicity research that is now revisited from classical point of view. actually new commits are significant, a new dataset is generated. See, https://zenodo.org/records/17151290 , so reproducibility is amazing even after so many years.

	▲	epistasis 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Thanks! This is a bit beyond my depth, and I wouldn't have figured anything out without this helpful comment. But some spin glass modeling ideas were very useful for a paper during my grad school days, so I think it's time to revisit it to see if I can steal any more great methods.

▲

random3 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No idea. But curious- why would something that was published a decad or longer ago not be of interest today?

▲

epistasis 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

The commit yesterday, on a very quiet repo, made me think there might be something more going on, that might be obvious to those who study the topic but not so obvious to a broader audience.

Also, older papers can be of interest but don't usually make it to the front page of a general audience news site unless there's something bigger going on that gave it renewed general interest.

▲

randmeerkat 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> No idea. But curious- why would something that was published a decad or longer ago not be of interest today?

Because if it isn’t in the “hype” it’s worthless, obsolete, trash…

Welcome to the new world of tech, that warms its hands by burning the old world.

Enjoy the vibes…

	▲	oersted 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Just wanted to stop by and say: cool writing. I don't quite agree, rather melodramatic, but it really paints a picture.

▲

chermi 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Edit Nvm I was being a grump. I'm glad people like this sort of work

	▲	epistasis 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		HN is highly stochastic, and honestly I don't think there's any way around it. The upvoting scheme can not distinguish between a hot topic of interest to 10% of readers, that deliver 10 upvotes in the first 10 minutes, from a more niche topic of interest to 5% of readers, that gets 10 upvotes in 10 minutes. At least it can't distinguish at that time. So things go to the front page, and future votes determine what happens! But that initial "on the front page" boost is a nonlinearity that many good posts do not get through. Personally, I really liked this post, and was merely asking because I was very surprised others liked it too!