Rule of thumb: the more steps you get away from the primary source the more corrupted everything gets. The article is good. The press release is bad. The tweet about the press release is worse. The tweets dunking on the tweet about the press release are terrible. Each one loses more of the critical context we need to actually understand what’s going on. Only the paper itself is a primary source. If you want to know what the paper’s about, you gotta read the paper!
Awesome find @ctwardy! We ought to get this guy on Readup.
I am still amazed by the amount of conversations that are had on Twitter,Facebook, etc.. that have a total disregard for the piece of writing/ideas that they are arguing. "I actually read this" should really be made into a bumper sticker of some sort, as this seems to be a main component of the 'infodemic' we find ourselves wrapped within.
I am not an ML expert or an anthropologist or a linguist. I have about as much ignorance of these domains as all the people mocking the paper on Twitter. But there’s one big difference between me and them: I actually read the paper. “
He is singing Readup's song, no? Short, well-written, good examples from the tech field.
Awesome find @ctwardy! We ought to get this guy on Readup.
I am still amazed by the amount of conversations that are had on Twitter,Facebook, etc.. that have a total disregard for the piece of writing/ideas that they are arguing. "I actually read this" should really be made into a bumper sticker of some sort, as this seems to be a main component of the 'infodemic' we find ourselves wrapped within.