Ugh, nothing has been confirmed; some interesting modeling and theoretical conjecturing was performed. The rest is grandiosity on the part of the article.
(Also, why was the link to a comment near the bottom of the article, rather than to where it began?)
Very fair point and I have a biased interest in confirming this outcome given my research in quantum computing but it irks me endlessly that science has devolved to something like marketing and confirmation bias.
Just to be clear: the science is fine; I skimmed through the publications and they did not come across as being obviously problematic. It is the reporting that was grandiose.
Ugh, nothing has been confirmed; some interesting modeling and theoretical conjecturing was performed. The rest is grandiosity on the part of the article.
(Also, why was the link to a comment near the bottom of the article, rather than to where it began?)
Probably because OP is an idiot.
Very fair point and I have a biased interest in confirming this outcome given my research in quantum computing but it irks me endlessly that science has devolved to something like marketing and confirmation bias.
Just to be clear: the science is fine; I skimmed through the publications and they did not come across as being obviously problematic. It is the reporting that was grandiose.
Again, fair point. These “journalists” know very little about what they’re reporting on.