> There is no reference to an actual paper in the article Hover over the underlined "proposed a solution" in the first paragraph and see https://arxiv.org/abs/

> There is no reference to an actual paper in the article Hover over the underlined "proposed a solution" in the first paragraph and see https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.11563 https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.11563 -- although the article certainly doesn't go so far as to point to e.g. §23 and the Conclusion, so I at least partly agree with you. I don't have much time for AdS arguments, so haven't done more than quickly skim for relevance to the Quanta article (which I also just skimmed for much the same reason). > these pop science sensationalist websites I can't really agree with characterizing Quanta as either "pop science" or "sensationalist", and presumably the Simons Foundation, it's backer, would disagree even more strongly. FWIW, Preskill liked the article. https://twitter.com/preskill/status/1070865055732916225 https://twitter.com/preskill/status/1070865055732916225 Even though I just skimmed, I certainly agree with the first sentence of Susskind's lecture's Conclusion, even without reading much of the rest of it. :-) (I also agree with the Conclusion's final sentence on p. 83. In fact, the whole last two paragraphs!) For my part, the Quanta article doesn't seem to have done Susskind or the lecture any great disservice. For that alone, I think the OP author should be commended.