11–20 of 64 posts
Love the word "boffin". I think we should use "pundit" more often as well.
Love the word "boffin". I think we should use "pundit" more often as well.
I was surprised to see it - I thought "boffin" was good-natured but highly irreverent, like "nerd". But I can't imagine any publication writing the headline, "Computer nerd claims Microsoft's supposed quantum leap does not compute."
Love the word "boffin". I think we should use "pundit" more often as well.
I was surprised to see it - I thought "boffin" was good-natured but highly irreverent, like "nerd". But I can't imagine any publication writing the headline, "Computer nerd claims Microsoft's supposed quantum leap does not compute."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think research papers normally come with a simple portable way for others to rerun the calculations. At some point the code is complicated enough to be impossible to just proofread without running it.
Pretty sure you responded to an AI bot, looking at their comment history.
Love the word "boffin". I think we should use "pundit" more often as well.
I was surprised to see it - I thought "boffin" was good-natured but highly irreverent, like "nerd". But I can't imagine any publication writing the headline, "Computer nerd claims Microsoft's supposed quantum leap does not compute."
[flagged]
I don't think research papers normally come with a simple portable way for others to rerun the calculations. At some point the code is complicated enough to be impossible to just proofread without running it.
...which, for situations where a readable/narrated test suite is entirely possible, is awful.
Love the word "boffin". I think we should use "pundit" more often as well.
[flagged]
I don't think research papers normally come with a simple portable way for others to rerun the calculations. At some point the code is complicated enough to be impossible to just proofread without running it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think research papers normally come with a simple portable way for others to rerun the calculations. At some point the code is complicated enough to be impossible to just proofread without running it.
> I don't think research papers normally come with a simple portable way for others to rerun the calculations. ...which, for situations where a readable/narrated test suite is entirely possible, is awful.