[plaguepilled]

I agree its a pleasant read, but like other Quanta articles, it spends too long on the journey and not enough time on the precise details for my liking. There are few symbolic expressions to be found. Others agree, which is why I shared the link.

Plus, calling it 'fluff' is surely the mildest of sassy descriptions, no?

[jessriedel]

The direct link to the actual paper is certainly very useful and much appreciated. I think yshklarov's point is just (1) it won't be accessible or interesting to the vast majority of HN readers (including me) without significant background info and (2) Quanta does a shockingly good job at this background (but is not intended to replace the paper itself).

[scoot]

> calling it 'fluff' is surely the mildest of sassy descriptions, no?

On the contrary, "fluff" suggests that the piece has nothing to offer outside of the source material.

[plaguepilled]

Nah, it just suggests that some of the article is superfluous, which I stand by.

Like I said a comment or two up, its a good article, but doesn't contain enough of the meat.