4 ms·

Even though? Is there a problem with Quanta that I am not aware of? I find it a nice magazine to read about various math-y subjects and researchers despite the

Even though? Is there a problem with Quanta that I am not aware of? I find it a nice magazine to read about various math-y subjects and researchers despite the editorial click-bait-ish style sometimes. It is a nice starting point to discover new stuffs.

gumby 6y ago
I find their writing overdramatic and often missing the central point. For an example recently discussed on HN: "Computer Scientists Achieve ‘Crown Jewel’ of Cryptography" -- misunderstanding the science, not investigating the larger context (in which it's just a form of FHE), pulling out the (overwrought) term of one person, to call it the "crown jewel", describing other work as "dazzling newcomers" and, of course, forgetting to investigate the practical constraints. These are errors in the basic craft of journalism. I see the same problems in other articles in areas I have worked in which leads me to doubt the whole enterprise. It also likes "profile of a researcher" articles, which are typical talismanic pieces for the popular press void of any actual science. It's probably fine to surface interesting topics, though there are other sources appear to use writers who are actual scientists, or who at least have scientific training.
- aruss 6y ago
  I like that their pieces dig into the backgrounds of the researchers, which humanizes and popularizes the science itself. It has to get down from the ivory tower somehow, and storytelling is a great medium. Most Quanta articles are not "void of any science;" rather, I find them to be great lay explanations of high-level concepts that most scientists (including myself) would struggle to articulate to non-academic family and friends. If you want "just the science, ma'am," you can go read the papers themselves. Also, not to nitpick, but I thought the crypto article was well-written and covered the subject properly. It seems you are the one misunderstanding the science if you believe that iO is just a form of FHE, which makes me doubt your whole enterprise of discrediting Quanta's work ;) Speaking as a (former) cryptographer here.

gumby 6y ago

I find their writing overdramatic and often missing the central point. For an example recently discussed on HN: "Computer Scientists Achieve ‘Crown Jewel’ of Cryptography" -- misunderstanding the science, not investigating the larger context (in which it's just a form of FHE), pulling out the (overwrought) term of one person, to call it the "crown jewel", describing other work as "dazzling newcomers" and, of course, forgetting to investigate the practical constraints. These are errors in the basic craft of journalism. I see the same problems in other articles in areas I have worked in which leads me to doubt the whole enterprise. It also likes "profile of a researcher" articles, which are typical talismanic pieces for the popular press void of any actual science. It's probably fine to surface interesting topics, though there are other sources appear to use writers who are actual scientists, or who at least have scientific training.

aruss 6y ago
I like that their pieces dig into the backgrounds of the researchers, which humanizes and popularizes the science itself. It has to get down from the ivory tower somehow, and storytelling is a great medium. Most Quanta articles are not "void of any science;" rather, I find them to be great lay explanations of high-level concepts that most scientists (including myself) would struggle to articulate to non-academic family and friends. If you want "just the science, ma'am," you can go read the papers themselves. Also, not to nitpick, but I thought the crypto article was well-written and covered the subject properly. It seems you are the one misunderstanding the science if you believe that iO is just a form of FHE, which makes me doubt your whole enterprise of discrediting Quanta's work ;) Speaking as a (former) cryptographer here.