Post #2920369

I will prioritize such review for results that either (a) have been requested for me to referee by a journal, (b) are authored by an early career researcher, (c) relate extremely directly to my previous or current work, (d) have been carefully formalized in a proof assistant, or (e) exhibit exceptionally thorough efforts by the authors at digesting and presenting the proof. In all other cases, I will be no longer be likely to present any significant public comment on such papers in real time, even if they appear to solve a well-known problem. (In case (a), of course, my opinions would only be communicated to the editor, and thence to the authors.) Of course, I have no objection to anyone else weighing in on such results, and traditional mechanisms for proof digestion, such as research talks, conversations at conferences, and the peer-review system, are still available. I may also eventually comment on such developments at a similarly "old-school" pace. But I will no longer try to match these digestion efforts to the speed and volume of this modern era of proof abundance. (2/2)