3 ms·

> Bad journalism. And bad comment :-/ Nothing personal, this is intended as constructive criticism. You completely ignore the main point of the article, and

by pygy_ 13y ago

> Bad journalism. And bad comment :-/ Nothing personal, this is intended as constructive criticism. You completely ignore the main point of the article, and come quibbling about an unrelated detail. This kind of comment often ends up at the top of the comment thread and obscures the comments that discuss the subject matter. Your point is rather obvious, and I suppose that you end up being upvoted by folks not knowledgeable enough to discuss TFA, but feel validated by the fact that they also spotted the error.

sillysaurus 13y ago
You should restate the main point of the article and then explain why the top comment is a quibble about an unrelated detail. If the readers aren't as knowledgeable as yourself, then you have an opportunity to change that rather than complain about it.
- pygy_ 13y ago
  I'm not qualified to discuss the main point, but enough to separate chaff from wheat in this case. The article is about quantum cryptography. The author gives credit card processing as a layman example of encrypted communication, and states, erroneously, that the connection process is slow because of the SSL handshake. It is true that SSL increases latency, but it is not the main factor, as harshreality said. However, the example is an aside, and the error is a small aside in the aside. Not really worth discussing, and it definitely doesn't have its place at the top of the thread, where it was when I first posted. It is still currently the second comment. Note that harshreality improved his post after the fact... or did I miss the good bits when I first read it? Hoist with my own petard? If so, sincere appologies.
  - harshreality 13y ago
    Nothing else in the article was particularly worth discussing either; other comments are detailing how this is not a breakthrough, or making minor clarifications, with beloch's in particular highlighting an alternative that might actually have interesting applications.
    - pygy_ 13y ago
      Why comment, then?

by pygy_ 13y ago

sillysaurus 13y ago

You should restate the main point of the article and then explain why the top comment is a quibble about an unrelated detail. If the readers aren't as knowledgeable as yourself, then you have an opportunity to change that rather than complain about it.

pygy_ 13y ago
I'm not qualified to discuss the main point, but enough to separate chaff from wheat in this case. The article is about quantum cryptography. The author gives credit card processing as a layman example of encrypted communication, and states, erroneously, that the connection process is slow because of the SSL handshake. It is true that SSL increases latency, but it is not the main factor, as harshreality said. However, the example is an aside, and the error is a small aside in the aside. Not really worth discussing, and it definitely doesn't have its place at the top of the thread, where it was when I first posted. It is still currently the second comment. Note that harshreality improved his post after the fact... or did I miss the good bits when I first read it? Hoist with my own petard? If so, sincere appologies.
- harshreality 13y ago
  Nothing else in the article was particularly worth discussing either; other comments are detailing how this is not a breakthrough, or making minor clarifications, with beloch's in particular highlighting an alternative that might actually have interesting applications.
  - pygy_ 13y ago
    Why comment, then?