| Don't hide behind the pretense of doing science to justify being a jerk. Look at your own language, in this reply, and in your blog post: "you don't understand how science works" - this is attacking a person, not an idea. The blog post: "Perhaps this would be less shocking, if they'd sat down and instead of jumping straight to Tensorflow, they could realize" [...] "They apparently have spent to much time staring into the progress bars on their GPU's to realize they are praising something obvious, obvious to the point that it can be constructed by hand in several lines of python code." This makes assumptions about the authors, and all but calls them idiots. That entire paragraphs drip with sarcasm, of which one can only assume you're smart enough to be aware and have intended. You made it personal, and that's exactly what the GP is noting when they term your blog post a "hit piece". Yes, people have used explicit coordinates as features before. No, this paper isn't going to radically change the world, but if you're arguing from "science", that _doesn't matter_ at all. Science is full of rediscovery and duplication, and tolerates it just fine. What matters most is that we filter out things that are wrong -- and I don't think that's obviously the case with this paper. "Trivial" is a subjective determination, and while one part of the job of refereeing a journal or conference is to try to rank things as a service to the audience, it's not the most important aspect of a reviewer's job. Just because you took a lot of bullshit doesn't mean it's OK. It's not OK if people were jerks to you in this way, and it's not OK to pass it on. |