5 ms·

Nit: Hiding what the neck you're talking about doesn't make for better journalism. If you're going to spend 9 paragraphs talking about the controversy of wheth

by mabbo 6y ago

Nit: Hiding what the neck you're talking about doesn't make for better journalism. If you're going to spend 9 paragraphs talking about the controversy of whether such a thing is possible or not, dedicate at least 1 sentence at the start to explain it. Otherwise it's just confusing because as a reader, I have no idea why I should care or what's even worth caring about here. Recommendation to anyone who hasn't read the article yet: start with the part called "The Crown Jewel".

ksd482 6y ago
Not just Nit, but I think this is a major point. It is my biggest pet peeve and I immediately back off from articles written in such manner. If writers write good introduction paragraph, it gauges my interest and I am more likely to read. Otherwise, I don't read out of spite or protest.
anonunivgrad 6y ago
It’s because journalists have no clue what they’re talking about. This is true for all journalism but you only notice it when it’s about something you’re familiar with.
- bawolff 6y ago
  If you are going to diss the journalist, you should back it up with specific examples.
  - anonunivgrad 6y ago
    I mean journalists in general.
  - adrianmonk 6y ago
    This particular journalist has qualifications that suggest she probably does know what she's talking about. From https://www.quantamagazine.org/authors/erica-klarreich/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/authors/erica-klarreich/: > About the author > Erica Klarreich has been writing about mathematics and science for more than 15 years. She has a doctorate in mathematics from Stony Brook University and is a graduate of the Science Communication Program at the University of California, Santa Cruz.
  - jancsika 6y ago
    Gell-Mann Amnesia has been widely researched on HN and ought to be reason enough for the OP to make the claim.
    - bawolff 6y ago
      There is a big difference between lots of journalism being bad and this specific piece being bad. 90% of everything is shit, but if someone posted their app on a show HN thread and i commented that it was shit on the basis that statistically most apps are shit, i would be rightfully downvoted to hell. This is no different.
pradn 6y ago
I don't think this is fair. This is more of a magazine article than a newspaper article. It's totally valid to draw a general reader in with answering the question of why to even care about this problem in the first place, and then fill in the technical details, which are, in any case, going to take some space to explain, given how complex the idea may be.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ballenf 6y ago
Who was the famous author that recommends throwing out your first chapter when writing a novel? That it's important for you to write as an author, but it doesn't serve the reader well.
parksy 6y ago
Yeah I will wait for a more digestible summary of what this actually does. This is one of the OLD reference papers: https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/257.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/257.pdf I guess once I figure out what bootstrapping IO for C means, maybe I'll have a chance of understanding the paper. But I don't even know what bootstrapping means in this context. I have no idea what: "Indistinguishability obfuscation" is (it seems like some kind of mathematical inverse to Monty Hall but I doubt that's a clean take) "polynomial size circuits" are (are they just talking about the number of variables in an equation? What does "size" and "circuits" mean here?) "constant-degree graded encoding schemes" are (blu... bluh... uh...) or what any of the above mean "in the plain model" (or what even is a "plain model"). That's the first 1/3rd of the first sentence of the abstract. I don't have a problem with that, clearly it's an extremely specialised field so I don't mind being ignorant here, but the OP article doesn't really seem to help at all with the understanding. The OP article has a nice picture with hidden lock boxes further down the page but this just feels like the whole quantum entanglement mystery all over again, where the analogy is more confusing than the observed phenomena. I'm looking at a bunch of replies here like "isn't this just simply [x] with [slight y difference]" and making huge calls on the impact to society and I'm here wondering if I'm the only dumb person who doesn't get it. I'll just add this is extremely interesting but it feels like this is going to take a few years for me to absorb what it means, unless I focus all my energy on it, which I'm not convinced I should just yet.

by mabbo 6y ago

ksd482 6y ago

Not just Nit, but I think this is a major point. It is my biggest pet peeve and I immediately back off from articles written in such manner. If writers write good introduction paragraph, it gauges my interest and I am more likely to read. Otherwise, I don't read out of spite or protest.

anonunivgrad 6y ago

It’s because journalists have no clue what they’re talking about. This is true for all journalism but you only notice it when it’s about something you’re familiar with.

bawolff 6y ago
If you are going to diss the journalist, you should back it up with specific examples.
- anonunivgrad 6y ago
  I mean journalists in general.
- adrianmonk 6y ago
  This particular journalist has qualifications that suggest she probably does know what she's talking about. From https://www.quantamagazine.org/authors/erica-klarreich/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/authors/erica-klarreich/: > About the author > Erica Klarreich has been writing about mathematics and science for more than 15 years. She has a doctorate in mathematics from Stony Brook University and is a graduate of the Science Communication Program at the University of California, Santa Cruz.
- jancsika 6y ago
  Gell-Mann Amnesia has been widely researched on HN and ought to be reason enough for the OP to make the claim.
  - bawolff 6y ago
    There is a big difference between lots of journalism being bad and this specific piece being bad. 90% of everything is shit, but if someone posted their app on a show HN thread and i commented that it was shit on the basis that statistically most apps are shit, i would be rightfully downvoted to hell. This is no different.

pradn 6y ago

I don't think this is fair. This is more of a magazine article than a newspaper article. It's totally valid to draw a general reader in with answering the question of why to even care about this problem in the first place, and then fill in the technical details, which are, in any case, going to take some space to explain, given how complex the idea may be.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ballenf 6y ago

Who was the famous author that recommends throwing out your first chapter when writing a novel? That it's important for you to write as an author, but it doesn't serve the reader well.

parksy 6y ago

Yeah I will wait for a more digestible summary of what this actually does. This is one of the OLD reference papers: https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/257.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/257.pdf I guess once I figure out what bootstrapping IO for C means, maybe I'll have a chance of understanding the paper. But I don't even know what bootstrapping means in this context. I have no idea what: "Indistinguishability obfuscation" is (it seems like some kind of mathematical inverse to Monty Hall but I doubt that's a clean take) "polynomial size circuits" are (are they just talking about the number of variables in an equation? What does "size" and "circuits" mean here?) "constant-degree graded encoding schemes" are (blu... bluh... uh...) or what any of the above mean "in the plain model" (or what even is a "plain model"). That's the first 1/3rd of the first sentence of the abstract. I don't have a problem with that, clearly it's an extremely specialised field so I don't mind being ignorant here, but the OP article doesn't really seem to help at all with the understanding. The OP article has a nice picture with hidden lock boxes further down the page but this just feels like the whole quantum entanglement mystery all over again, where the analogy is more confusing than the observed phenomena. I'm looking at a bunch of replies here like "isn't this just simply [x] with [slight y difference]" and making huge calls on the impact to society and I'm here wondering if I'm the only dumb person who doesn't get it. I'll just add this is extremely interesting but it feels like this is going to take a few years for me to absorb what it means, unless I focus all my energy on it, which I'm not convinced I should just yet.