News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Alan Turing's 'Morphogenesis' Theory Confirmed 60 Years A... by leoc on Sunday March 23, 2014 @12:54PM (#7454005)
Sorry to go meta, but is there a review of that review which lays out some or most of the things you object to in it?
Re:Alan Turing's 'Morphogenesis' Theory Confirmed 60 Years A... by nswanberg on Sunday March 23, 2014 @01:30PM (#7454147)
Here you go: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3972635#up_3974503

My personal single biggest objection, though, is that the review appears to be used as a sort of conversation-ending trump card, usually posted with very little comment, sort of like you might see from a fan of talk radio posting in a newspaper comment section.

https://hn.algolia.com/?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cscs.umich.edu%2F...

https://hn.algolia.com/?q=http%3A%2F%2Fvserver1.cscs.lsa.umi...

It's about as bad as bringing up Wolfram's ego--the consequent discussion never leads to anything interesting. Witness this thread that marktangotango started. I don't believe he was being malicious, but it's clear that rather than start a discussion about cellular automata like he intended it spawned a wasteland thread about attribution.

Why must we talk about TMZ-level bullshit when we could be talking about Turing's paper and the original paper in the post? Why is that discussion losing out to gossip?