21–30 of 106 posts
[flagged]
He just doesn't get the arguments she's making, and "defeats" them with laughable strawmans. But anyway, it's YouTube science so one shouldn't expect much.
Btw, Sabine's video on the topic of this thread is a good one, the remark is unwarranted.
[flagged]
I feel like the core of intellectualism is accepting criticism, including criticism you disagree with. I find some of Sabine's videos to be a bit click-baity, but they are usually logically coherent, even the ones that aren't convincing. She's not just a crazy person yelling at the sky.
Science is not religion. Its ok for people to feel certain research programs are off track. That doesn't neccesarily mean they are right, but its ok to have opinions
[flagged]
Interesting, her videos have never struck me as contrarian for the sake of it, she seems genuinely frustrated at a lack of substantial progress in physics and the plethora of garbage papers. Though I imagine it must be annoying to be a physicist and have someone constantly telling you you're not good enough, but that itself is kind of part of the scientific process too.
[I am not a physicist so probably can't really evaluate the whole thing neutrally]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Not enough em-dashes for it to be AI. (Less jokingly, nothing strikes me as particularly AI about the comment, not to mention its author addressed the question perfectly adequately. Your comment comes off as a spurious dismissal.)
Giving a short summary of Hilbert's biography & his problem list, does not explain why this particular work is interesting, except in the most superficial sense that its a famous problem.
[flagged]
Prof. Sabine Hossenfelder is a pretty clear-headed communicator. I've been following her for nearly 20 years, almost since she started writing the Backreaction blog. Her criticisms boil down to: 1. Modern science spends perhaps too much time on frivolous research that doesn't lead to anything. This very much applies to the theoretical physics and the endless series of attempts at ToE. But it's not limited to theoreti…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not enough em-dashes for it to be AI. (Less jokingly, nothing strikes me as particularly AI about the comment, not to mention its author addressed the question perfectly adequately. Your comment comes off as a spurious dismissal.)
To me, it looks like AI because it doesn't really answer the question but instead answers something adjacent, which is common in AI responses. Giving a short summary of Hilbert's biography & his problem list, does not explain why this particular work is interesting, except in the most superficial sense that its a famous problem.
(For the record, if I had attempted to answer the earlier question, I probably would have laid out a similar narrative. The asker's questions were of a kind asking for the greater context, and the fact that Hilbert (mentioned in the submission title) posed the question is pretty important grounding. But, that's beside the point.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not enough em-dashes for it to be AI. (Less jokingly, nothing strikes me as particularly AI about the comment, not to mention its author addressed the question perfectly adequately. Your comment comes off as a spurious dismissal.)
To me, it looks like AI because it doesn't really answer the question but instead answers something adjacent, which is common in AI responses. Giving a short summary of Hilbert's biography & his problem list, does not explain why this particular work is interesting, except in the most superficial sense that its a famous problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
may you please elaborate on why it is important, why hasn't been solved before and what new applications may you imagine with it, please?
Explained for the layperson in the video cited here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44439593
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
But you cannot prove it. So what value did your comment bring? The readership of this site should always question if a comment is in good faith, legitimate, and accurate. Your commentary may only be one of those.
Prove it. Prove I cannot.