[jessriedel]

Yea, I'm all for adding as much layman-intelligible context as possible, but you can always make there sorts of gripes if you expect arbitrarily niche science topics to self-contained. The fact is that there's just not that much to say about quantum memory if you don't have the background to know what a Rabbi oscillation is.

I wonder to what extent this is just a humanities/sciences divide. I'd bet that scientists reading wikipedia far outside their specialty are less surprised and frustrated by the level of accessibility than are non-scientists. With important exceptions, topics in the humanities generally just have fewer levels of dependency.

[isolate]

What are the exceptions?

[jessriedel]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism

(Needless to say, I don't think these levels of dependency imply true intellectual depth...)

[brownbat]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Dogmas_of_Empiricism