4 ms·
> I seriously doubt that many of it's readers have sufficiently deep knowledge of QC to properly understand the Sachdev–Ye–Kitaev model But that's the problem
by Veen 4y ago
> I seriously doubt that many of it's readers have sufficiently deep knowledge of QC to properly understand the Sachdev–Ye–Kitaev model
But that's the problem. Most people don't understand the underlying science, so they rely on science journalism to distill and explicate complex topics without simplifying and distorting to the point they lose any relationship with the truth. In this case, the writer has failed in their task; they've written a load of nonsense that actively undermines a reader's ability to comprehend the topic—in short, it's bullshit.
- andyjohnson0 4y agoI'm not disputing that the Quanta article is factually deficient - although I don't have the relevant specialist knowledge to understand why. I am disputing that this marks the "death" of the magazine.
- dekken_ 4y agoPurely speaking for myself, but I could tell it was metaphorical. Given the "magazine" is still operating, and that I read some of the article.
- nobodyandproud 4y agoA plain reading of the first four or five paragraphs doesn’t tell me that this is a calculation.
- dekken_ 4y agoI meant that the magazine is not literally dead, but in the sense of "dead to me".
- barry-cotter 4y ago
- astrange 4y ago> [1] https://news.yahoo.com/news/liberal-blogger-matt-yglesias-ad https://news.yahoo.com/news/liberal-blogger-matt-yglesias-ad... Amusingly(?) this article you linked is a lie, since he explicitly denies that he meant it that way. (Also, it's on a news site but isn't news?) This is the traditional extremely angry misreading of a normal Matt Yglesias tweet; it's sometimes known as "cope".
- oh_my_goodness 4y agoNot death of magazine. Correct. But is the distinction between calculation and experiment really specialist knowledge?