RANT: As a researcher in quantum optics and spectroscopy, holy shit am I tired of reading through these comment threads where it's clear that nobody understands the topic, yet people still make assertive nicely-sounding statements that are bound to get up-voted by other people who also don't understand the topic. ~ugh~
Ok let’s get down to it. Are you prominent or especially knowledgeable in the specific area discussed? The first irony to avoid here is that you might not be an expert because it’s possible to do advanced work in your areas that’s quite removed from this. That’s true for all research, it’s endlessly splintered into sub fields. I forget who is commonly said to be the last person to know most all of science, was it Newton?
Secondly, even when people are wrong here they don’t seem any more intransigent or arrogant on average. The point is I would assume they are acting in good faith, however I can’t be sure because you criticize people without specific citations. You use citations in your papers I assume?
Let me change course and try and make this as productive as possible by looking at your comments in the most positive light. You are eminent in the field and somehow found yourself reading terribly uninformed assertively stated comments.
What a lost opportunity to correct and inform. What you could say in only a matter of minutes, could seem invaluable to those passionately interested in the subject. I’m sure it would be appreciated, raise the quality of discourse, and may help spread a more informed and accurate lay perspective of the field.
What would Susskind do? If he were here reading comments on a black hole article (for a reason I can’t imagine)? I don’t know him personally but whenever I listen to him lecture I’m always impressed by how willing he seems to share his genius with people interested in learning.
I'm seconding the point about educating hn readers. If you're an expert in the area please correct any misconceptions you see. It might feel like a losing battle, but it's not.
HN readers aren't sheep. We're more than capable of skimming past light-on-fact comment to get to the good ones.
It's only when HN discuss a topic in which you are an expert in that you realise 90% of the comments are absolute nonsense. It happens every time there is a biology topic as well.
It happens with core computer science topics as well. The misconceptions around Big O notation, for example, are astonishing. O(f(n)) is the set of functions that asymptotically grow at most as fast as f(n). It's not limited to measuring running time in the RAM model, or somehow captures the variable n, or anything like that. You can use it to measure memory use, or communication volume, or anything else you like. It can be defined in multiple variables, like number of nodes and edges, or input size and approximation factor, or whatever else you might need. And all of n², n²+n log(n), √n log(n), 42, and 1/n are in O(n²) because O isn't Θ, ffs.</rant>
Same with economics; when someone says in the comments for a rant piece that homo economicus is a core concept of all modern economics because that's what they learned in that one 101 class they took... Grr...
It must be quite fun for you to read so many armchair financiers here reconstructing modern economics from first principles on the one hand, while throwing in gems like “economics is not a science” because “not all participants are rational actors as usually assumed” on the other :)
That's an excellent talk from Michael Chrichton [0]. Plus this was another rather relevant piece to some of the comments too:
> Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories.
But I suppose they have the time to make disparaging remarks about everyone else’s understanding, without any overtures at correcting it?
Edit: This seems to be an unpopular comment already, so let me sidestep potential criticism with the following clarification: I work in cryptography, both professionally and academically, and I make every attempt to help improve understanding of that discipline here on HN. My comment here is directed at the current top comment in the thread. An open rant about some group’s poor understanding of a highly technical area to that group does not improve their understanding, and it will just isolate everyone who reads the comment who doesn’t have a firm grasp of the field (which by the nature of the rant will imply most people reading it).
The feeling of exasperation is valid, but share it with colleagues, or augment it with some attempt at guidance. Otherwise, what are you ranting about except to yell at something that isn’t going to change, while everyone must sit around and be witness to your condescension?
Also as someone who has done research (quantum chemistry), which comments specifically are you referring to? The only ones I see making incorrect statements are those that are already expressing their uncertainty and asking for further clarification.
Yes, please. It doesn't look like on this particular thread, there are many comments that are completely off.
Also, CS people are probably just as good talking about the CS aspect of quantum computing as quantum physicists are regarding the quantum aspect of it. no?
> Also, CS people are probably just as good talking about the CS aspect of quantum computing as quantum physicists are regarding the quantum aspect of it. no?
No, but that seems like an unfair comparison. Quantum physicists are by definition highly trained scientists; CS people range from teenagers hacking on word-press, to well-trained engineers without much science background, to highly-trained scientists.
Or put another way, that depends on what you mean by "CS People".
The top end of your range of computer science people is maxed out at, engineers without much science background?
The name Turing ring a bell? Just opinion, I consider him one of the greatest minds of his century. He worked on a lot of things but some would say he fits pretty well in cs. And there are more like him who just didn’t happen to become famous to the general public. I could give a dozen more examples of people’s contributions, profound insights, fundamentally important basic research results, that might make you extend, at least the top of your range a bit.
No. Reread my comment. It hasn't been edited and explicitly mentioned highly trained scientists. The last three words for the first paragraph... Your characterization of my comment is just a plain and obvious misreading.
More over, as a scientist, I don't think highly trained scientists are "higher" than highly trained engineers. They're different and not well-ordered. So your "maxes out at" verbage is not agreeable to me.
Wow, I must admit I somehow did not see the last fragment of that sentence. Reading it again it appears, unfortunately, those were exactly the few words someone would want to miss, to earn a promotion from mistaken to 180 degrees wrong with special recognition for offensive qualities.
I apologize with no reservations. I try to read precisely before responding, but clearly did not take care to do so in this case.
Ironically after reading/thinking more, we may actually have similar perspectives on the subject. I’m curious what you mean by “not well-ordered”? However if you do you feel like replying, no problem, I would understand that.
In any case, take care. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
> I’m curious what you mean by “not well-ordered”?
Just that researchers aren't better/smarter/etc. than engineers and vice versa. They are different jobs, both essential in their own way, both difficult in their own way.
Oh well, how timely, I was talking about quantum optics yesterday, and now Im curious about textbooks references, any suggestions ? Even fundamentals and not up to date QC research.
