3 ms·
Contrast with HN discussion of the purported breakthrough: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34235350 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34235350
by svat 4y ago
Contrast with HN discussion of the purported breakthrough: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34235350 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34235350
- cwillu 4y ago[flagged]
- detrites 4y ago[flagged]
- JumpCrisscross 4y agoI’m not seeing the contrast. Aaronson speaks more definitively. But the top comments on HN [1][2] were well-reasoned scepticism. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34237886 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34237886 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34237218 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34237218
- barathr 4y agoAnd Schneier's own post expressed skepticism while noting that this is something that should be check-able now.
- svat 4y agoWhile it's indeed true that the top two threads' root comments are sceptical, replies to them, and further threads, present counter-arguments — one could easily come away from reading the HN discussion thinking that there's something to this paper. (And indeed, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34261645 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34261645)