4 ms·
Nature and Science obviously aren't targeting the general public, so sniping at them about retractions is a bit silly. Quanta, I guess.
by bananapub 3y ago
Nature and Science obviously aren't targeting the general public, so sniping at them about retractions is a bit silly.
Quanta, I guess.
- xqcgrek2 3y agoQuanta is horrible. https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=13209 https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=13209
- cbolton 3y agoThat's a rather uncharitable judgement based on just one article... Also in case others struggled to understand what the linked article is talking about, I found this one very helpful: https://4gravitons.com/2022/12/09/simulated-wormholes-for-my-real-friends-real-wormholes-for-my-simulated-friends/ https://4gravitons.com/2022/12/09/simulated-wormholes-for-my...
- hedora 3y agoThey clearly are, take this article, for example. Literally zero scientists outside this researcher’s circle of 10 related labs care about the political intrigue and name calling around this. Outline if I wrote the article: What are the implications of the claims? What has this lab reported before, what were the technical mistakes they made? Survey of state of the art in peer reviewed publications. Technical critique of patent from world experts (“they probably incorrectly hooked up the volt ohm meter again” is in the article, but that belongs in the prior work section, not in the analysis of the patent)