4 ms·

Discussion around the matching bullish take: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21053405 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21053405

• mlthoughts2018 7y ago
  What do you mean by “matching”? The bullish take is just a different take that presumably must develop answers to the points of this post to remain a viable belief option. It actually strikes me somewhat as editorializing to place this link here with the wording you chose. If anything in your linked discussion actually addresses the substantive points of this post, why not link to those items specifically? What would a generic link to discussion on it that’s not tied to this post’s claims be contributing? Why would it matter if that post was “bullish”? If it adds some context related to this post, what is that context?
  • anoncareer0212 7y ago
    hmu, u need some bud
    • mlthoughts2018 7y ago
      No I just think people eager to push for the positive result interpretation from the Google paper rush to astroturf, and you can reasonably detect it even from limited text like this case.
  • fastball 7y ago
    "Matching" in this context I believe refers to the fact that these are articles written on the person blogs of people that have very deep knowledge of the industry and what is required of quantum computers.
  • antonvs 7y ago
    An obvious interpretation of "matching" here is "as bullish as the OP take is bearish."