4 ms·
This is all correct, and shows why both biologists and physicists don't take the conclusions of Patel's paper too seriously. Just aiming for "20" without any co
by knzhou 7y ago
This is all correct, and shows why both biologists and physicists don't take the conclusions of Patel's paper too seriously. Just aiming for "20" without any context for what that means is a bad kind of numerology. There's probably a grain of truth in the paper, but only enough to get to something like "20 plus or minus 10", not exactly "20".
Speaking as an MIT alumnus, some of the school's promotional material is glitzy on the outside and hollow on the inside. The MIT Tech Review's "Emerging Technologies" column is particularly bad. I've written numerous rants over the years rebutting incredibly misleading viral articles from it. It's a shame that people automatically trust it because of the MIT name.
- jessriedel 7y agoMIT Tech Review is no longer associated with MIT. The name is historical vestige. It's just another magazine like Popular Science.
- colechristensen 7y agoWeird that they wouldn't protect their trademark
- tyingq 7y agoNot sure that "no longer associated with MIT" is exactly right. "our coverage is independent of any influence, including our ownership by MIT." https://www.technologyreview.com/about/ https://www.technologyreview.com/about/
- dekhn 7y agothat's not correct, they are owned by MIT.
- jessriedel 7y agoThanks you're right. The important idea I was remembering is that they have no editorial connection to the university; they're just an investment.
- lonelappde 7y agoIt's part of the trend of MIT and many other venerable institutions cashing out their reputation instead of building on it.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]