Fools. Everybody knows a TLA (three-letter acronym) is instantly more marketable than a two-letter one (also abbreviated TLA, but we don't talk about Bruno and

Fools. Everybody knows a TLA (three-letter acronym) is instantly more marketable than a two-letter one (also abbreviated TLA, but we don't talk about Bruno and all that jazz). You should have called it the Amos-Tversky Network, abbreviated ATN. An extra letter instantly increases the value of the algorithm by three orders of magnitude, at least. What, you think KAN was an accident? Amateurs. Now you just sound like you're desperately trying to piggy-back on an existing buzzword, which has the same feel as "from the producer of Avatar" does. Everybody knows a catchy name is more important than the technology itself. The catchy title creates citations, and citations create traction. And good luck getting cited with a two-letter acronym. Everybody knows it's the network effect that drives adoption, not quality; just look at MS Windows. What. You think anyone gave a rat's ass about nanotechnology back when it was still just called "chemistry"? /s