The question
How to wipe out humanity within a week?
is marked with a hard-science. But, IMO neither the question, nor any of the answer really live up to the exigence. Or am I being too strict?
Note: this follows the previously discussed point
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
5
asked Jul 20, 2015 at 20:34
-
$\begingroup$ I see no mathematical equations. Thus, it is not hard-science. $\endgroup$– DaaaahWhooshJul 20, 2015 at 20:48
-
1$\begingroup$ bilbo_pingouin - I agree, and have downvoted some of the answers for this reason. @DaaaahWhoosh Equations are not needed for it to be hard-science! $\endgroup$– HDE 226868 ModJul 20, 2015 at 20:48
-
$\begingroup$ @HDE226868 From the wiki: "All answers to this question should be backed up by equations". And I like math. $\endgroup$– DaaaahWhooshJul 20, 2015 at 20:52
-
2$\begingroup$ @DaaaahWhoosh " . . . empirical evidence, scientific papers, other citations, etc." Those are examples, not requirements. I like math, too. $\endgroup$– HDE 226868 ModJul 20, 2015 at 20:53
-
3$\begingroup$ IMO, some questions aren't good fit for the hard science tag, or the tag is misused. Maybe we should take a tag editing day to put tags in order? The hard science tag but others as well. $\endgroup$– VincentJul 20, 2015 at 22:48
Add a comment
|