13 ms·
That's pretty much what academia told Motl. He hasn't been a working physicist for a long time precisely because of how unnecessarily and uncharacteristically
by sn9 10y ago
That's pretty much what academia told Motl.
He hasn't been a working physicist for a long time precisely because of how unnecessarily and uncharacteristically nasty he is.
Characterizing him as an example of any sort of trend in academia is both uninformed and deeply insulting.
- timv 10y ago> He hasn't been a working physicist for a long time precisely because of how unnecessarily and uncharacteristically nasty he is. It's hard to understand why New Scientist decided to quote him then. They certainly seem to be presenting him as someone worth paying attention to.
- acqq 10y ago> It's hard to understand why New Scientist decided to quote him then. Is it harder than to understand that they publish an article with the false title and false interpretations?