[mellosouls]

I'm a little sceptical of these authoritative-sounding "overviews" that are essentially plugs for the author's thesis - the paper providing the justification for the title quietly inserted in this case right at the end of the article.

Personally, I'd prefer third party summaries of the thesis when it has been established as an interesting contribution, and the original article to stick to what is actually accepted by the mainstream; or at the very least to be more up-front that this is actually based on a new paper by the author.

That's not to say this paper is wrong - I'm not remotely qualified to judge (and it happens regularly in articles plugged on HN); I just find the way these things are presented as a bit iffy.

[Koshkin]

I agree, motivation is important (because it reflects on the quality of the content).