> It's easier to impress a TED audience than your peers. this seems like a perspective on a problem with pure theoretical research. like why print "Cycles of T

> It's easier to impress a TED audience than your peers. this seems like a perspective on a problem with pure theoretical research. like why print "Cycles of Time" instead of publishing in a peer reviewed journal? is Penrose being disingenuous or is he just trying to share an idea he finds interesting even if reasonably speculative? the EPFL result is interesting even if they wanted to analyze it as network motifs in a directed graph, but that wouldn't account for the symmetry they presumably observed in the "higher dimensional polyhedrons" would it?