I …what? “No u” is really the best you could think up? I get the feeling you’re not here in good faith; this seems like it might not be a conversation with much value, intellectual or entertainment.
absolutely hilarious that you think you deserve some sophisticated response here, and obviously this conversation has no value, you have absolutely nothing of substance to say, run along and do your trolling elsewhere
Implying I expect sophistication is a tad optimistic, but I suppose I’m not so heartless as to deny you your vices.
Chores aside though, why are we doing this? I made some good points about the technology, and it’s clear from further reading that the usual has happened with popsci reporting. I really recommend you read the source paper - it does an excellent job of explaining exactly the points I raised initially and why the scope was restricted so sharply.
Really, if you don’t want an informed opinion and you show open and naked contempt for “armchair experts” (because obviously a layperson could never gain knowledge without the hierarchy of academia), why are you sharing it at all? If it’s just to aggregate links and pick fights, Reddit is right over there; and they’d love another passionate user of your caliber.
Awww, it’s adorable that you think you made good points. And being actually informed is precisely how I can spot trolls like you. Not really sure why you keep replying. You’re not going to convince me to have any respect for you by continuing to double down here.
Sounds like one of use is definitely crashing out. Is google blocked at the troll farm?
I …what? “No u” is really the best you could think up? I get the feeling you’re not here in good faith; this seems like it might not be a conversation with much value, intellectual or entertainment.
absolutely hilarious that you think you deserve some sophisticated response here, and obviously this conversation has no value, you have absolutely nothing of substance to say, run along and do your trolling elsewhere
Implying I expect sophistication is a tad optimistic, but I suppose I’m not so heartless as to deny you your vices.
Chores aside though, why are we doing this? I made some good points about the technology, and it’s clear from further reading that the usual has happened with popsci reporting. I really recommend you read the source paper - it does an excellent job of explaining exactly the points I raised initially and why the scope was restricted so sharply.
Really, if you don’t want an informed opinion and you show open and naked contempt for “armchair experts” (because obviously a layperson could never gain knowledge without the hierarchy of academia), why are you sharing it at all? If it’s just to aggregate links and pick fights, Reddit is right over there; and they’d love another passionate user of your caliber.
Awww, it’s adorable that you think you made good points. And being actually informed is precisely how I can spot trolls like you. Not really sure why you keep replying. You’re not going to convince me to have any respect for you by continuing to double down here.