4 ms·

Is it just me, or is this article written by someone who is clueless? I read the whole thing, and wasn't able to extract a single piece of genuine information.

Is it just me, or is this article written by someone who is clueless? I read the whole thing, and wasn't able to extract a single piece of genuine information. Either someone is gaming HN to make artificial up votes, or I need to find a different forum.

jared314 13y ago
You are not alone in that opinion. From what I could glean, they are trying to address power distribution, and conversion efficiency, in large scale computer systems by integrating a Vanadium redox battery[1] directly into the chip. (And exploiting the cooling effect of the flowing electrolyte) It is a neat idea, badly described. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_battery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_battery
TazeTSchnitzel 13y ago
The BBC's science journalists are ok at journalism. Shame about the other part of their job descriptions.
Someone 13y ago
I don't understand this remark. I think they describe the 'why' and the 'what' parts fine for what I think is their target audience. They even mention the 'how' part: "IBM is looking for a fluid that can multitask. Vanadium is the best performer in their current laboratory test system - a type of redox flow unit - similar to a simple battery. First a liquid - the electrolyte - is charged via electrodes, then pumped into the computer, where it discharges energy to the chip. Redox flow is far from a new technology, and neither is it especially complex."
alan_cx 13y ago
This article was not written for any one who has even an average understanding of the subject. It is there to give the most simple, general over view of an interesting development. It is not supposed to be anything more than that. It is there for shelf stackers, van drivers, policemen, accountants, solicitors, carpenters, mechanics, in fact, any one but people with any clue to start with. People with a clue are doing themselves down by reading it in the first place. They should already know all about it, and not be blind sided by a BBC piece. No, the person who wrote it is not clueless, they have written it for the clueless. And that, is absolutely NOT a value judgement on the "clueless". The vast majority of people very understandably do not have any clue about this niche science. Why on earth should they? After all, does being a whiz with Java or something suddenly mean this should even begin to have any understanding of this? Why should it? So why should a brick layer have any idea at all? All the average "clueless" want is a very, very basic over view, such that they can essentially say, "oh wow, that's cool. Oi Dave, look at this". And if they are even slightly inspired, they would go off and drill down to the proper scientific detail else where, using something revolutionary like Google. If you want any more than that, then I'm sorry, its not the remit of the BBC. And no body even close to knowing the basics of this sort stuff would be getting their information from the BBC. Like I have said, they will already be very clued up, right? And one in the middle will not even read the article fully. They will get enough information to go to a more thorough source. I get really frustrated with people who seem clueless themselves about what the BBC is there for, and who articles like this are aimed at. It is always easy for some expert to slag off BBC articles, in the way you have, when they were never ever written to stand up to peer review or some such high standard. I imagine an "expert" could easily pick holes in literally every single article the BBC has ever published. What is really depressing is that you have obviously read enough to be interested. But instead of being interested enough to search for more information, you come here to lay in to the author. Is it really that much easier to complain than research? Does the BBC have to spoon feed every one, on every subject, at every level? No. Its a broadcaster, not a collection of all the worlds best universities. The let you peek in, the rest is up to you.
louwrentius 13y ago
I couldn't distill a single piece of actual information either. It was a bad read and I stopped at 1/4.

jared314 13y ago

You are not alone in that opinion. From what I could glean, they are trying to address power distribution, and conversion efficiency, in large scale computer systems by integrating a Vanadium redox battery[1] directly into the chip. (And exploiting the cooling effect of the flowing electrolyte) It is a neat idea, badly described. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_battery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_battery

TazeTSchnitzel 13y ago

The BBC's science journalists are ok at journalism. Shame about the other part of their job descriptions.

Someone 13y ago

I don't understand this remark. I think they describe the 'why' and the 'what' parts fine for what I think is their target audience. They even mention the 'how' part: "IBM is looking for a fluid that can multitask. Vanadium is the best performer in their current laboratory test system - a type of redox flow unit - similar to a simple battery. First a liquid - the electrolyte - is charged via electrodes, then pumped into the computer, where it discharges energy to the chip. Redox flow is far from a new technology, and neither is it especially complex."

alan_cx 13y ago

This article was not written for any one who has even an average understanding of the subject. It is there to give the most simple, general over view of an interesting development. It is not supposed to be anything more than that. It is there for shelf stackers, van drivers, policemen, accountants, solicitors, carpenters, mechanics, in fact, any one but people with any clue to start with. People with a clue are doing themselves down by reading it in the first place. They should already know all about it, and not be blind sided by a BBC piece. No, the person who wrote it is not clueless, they have written it for the clueless. And that, is absolutely NOT a value judgement on the "clueless". The vast majority of people very understandably do not have any clue about this niche science. Why on earth should they? After all, does being a whiz with Java or something suddenly mean this should even begin to have any understanding of this? Why should it? So why should a brick layer have any idea at all? All the average "clueless" want is a very, very basic over view, such that they can essentially say, "oh wow, that's cool. Oi Dave, look at this". And if they are even slightly inspired, they would go off and drill down to the proper scientific detail else where, using something revolutionary like Google. If you want any more than that, then I'm sorry, its not the remit of the BBC. And no body even close to knowing the basics of this sort stuff would be getting their information from the BBC. Like I have said, they will already be very clued up, right? And one in the middle will not even read the article fully. They will get enough information to go to a more thorough source. I get really frustrated with people who seem clueless themselves about what the BBC is there for, and who articles like this are aimed at. It is always easy for some expert to slag off BBC articles, in the way you have, when they were never ever written to stand up to peer review or some such high standard. I imagine an "expert" could easily pick holes in literally every single article the BBC has ever published. What is really depressing is that you have obviously read enough to be interested. But instead of being interested enough to search for more information, you come here to lay in to the author. Is it really that much easier to complain than research? Does the BBC have to spoon feed every one, on every subject, at every level? No. Its a broadcaster, not a collection of all the worlds best universities. The let you peek in, the rest is up to you.

louwrentius 13y ago

I couldn't distill a single piece of actual information either. It was a bad read and I stopped at 1/4.