Why is a summary of what actual scientists are doing important enough to get published? I'm not quite sure what this paper is doing but maybe I don't get it as the scientists all seem very smart.
If you tried to be as smart as them you'd quickly appreciate the utility of review articles. We can't really have an apprenticeship style of education so we who cannot physically study under the scientists rely on their publications, including the more accessible review papers... Admittedly maybe getting it out in nature is a bit of an eyeball grabber but.. Still useful.
Quantum Machine Learning [pdf]
11–15 of 15 posts
Re: Quantum Machine Learning [pdf]
#12Why is a summary of what actual scientists are doing important enough to get published? I'm not quite sure what this paper is doing but maybe I don't get it as the scientists all seem very smart.
You might notice this was written by actual researchers working in the field, and that it was published in the Reviews section of Nature. Not sure what your issue with the article is. Review papers are among the most cited and important publications in science. There are entire journals dedicated to them, and their impact factor is often an order of magnitude higher than that of original research journals.
Re: Quantum Machine Learning [pdf]
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might notice this was written by actual researchers working in the field, and that it was published in the Reviews section of Nature. Not sure what your issue with the article is. Review papers are among the most cited and important publications in science. There are entire journals dedicated to them, and their impact factor is often an order of magnitude higher than that of original research journals.
Who is taking an issue with anything? I just asked an honest question and didn't denigrate anyone. Maybe in the age of Trump tweets its difficult for you not to take instant offense?
Re: Quantum Machine Learning [pdf]
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might notice this was written by actual researchers working in the field, and that it was published in the Reviews section of Nature. Not sure what your issue with the article is. Review papers are among the most cited and important publications in science. There are entire journals dedicated to them, and their impact factor is often an order of magnitude higher than that of original research journals.
Who is taking an issue with anything? I just asked an honest question and didn't denigrate anyone. Maybe in the age of Trump tweets its difficult for you not to take instant offense?
[1] Just to explain how I read it: You draw an incorrect distinction between the authors doing the summarizing and "actual scientists". The review is in fact written by "actual scientists". I consequently interpreted your statement "maybe I don't get it, the scientists all seem very smart", as snarky.
Re: Quantum Machine Learning [pdf]
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who is taking an issue with anything? I just asked an honest question and didn't denigrate anyone. Maybe in the age of Trump tweets its difficult for you not to take instant offense?
From quantum machine learning to Trump in 4 comments lol. Maybe everyone is a little touchy. :)