@David Hi David, I added a link.

Hi @Asaf. I don't have any details. I learned of it through one of his former students. Apparently he had heart problems.

Why is there this need to punish a misguided kid?

Endless rudeness and noise.

@François I suppose that would do but I still don't understand the insistence in having to explicitly indicate that one is a tag in topology, and that the same objects need a different tag if discussed in other contexts.

Yes, it appears the three of them were automatically deleted.

I think so, sure. Or we could just call it cardinal-characteristics-of-the-continuum or cardinal-invariants-of-the-continuum if limiting the scope is important. In any case my point is that deciding that "small uncountable" means of size at most continuum does not make it so (and it is meaningless. Would the tag be applicable to a question about $\omega_4$, or only if we add the silly extra clause that the continuum is larger?), and saying that the scope of a "small-uncountable-cardinals" tag is precisely "cardinal-characteristics-of-the-continuum" is silly, better to use proper terminology.