A cutting wit unique in its originality, truly. I may never recover. You’re welcome to address the question tho - this tech seems like a novelty more than anything.
Ah yes, another armchair expert who clearly knows more than the researchers at Nanjing University and the editors of Nature Sensors.
Power constraints are not a concern. Drones and satellites just have unlimited batteries, right? They definitely don’t need to shave off every milliwatt possible.
Hybrid CV systems are already perfect. Why would anyone bother innovating when we can just keep moving massive amounts of redundant data through multiple conversion stages? It’s not like that burns energy or anything.
But sure, your armchair analysis definitely outweighs peer reviewed research from an international team that built a working prototype with molybdenum disulfide phototransistors.
They probably just forgot to Google ‘hybrid CV’ before publishing.
… You feeling okay? It’s really dumb to be crashing out this hard over popsci reporting. Maybe go give the actual paper a read? It doesn’t answer my criticisms, hence presenting them here, but at least we’ll have a common basis on which to discuss my criticism of the research.
Nanjing University
(well… they did offer me a job, so I suppose they must see something of value in my work? It was pretty far outside my field though. And, honestly, they’re just shotgunning out offers to any researchers that publish)
I …what? “No u” is really the best you could think up? I get the feeling you’re not here in good faith; this seems like it might not be a conversation with much value, intellectual or entertainment.
absolutely hilarious that you think you deserve some sophisticated response here, and obviously this conversation has no value, you have absolutely nothing of substance to say, run along and do your trolling elsewhere
Implying I expect sophistication is a tad optimistic, but I suppose I’m not so heartless as to deny you your vices.
Chores aside though, why are we doing this? I made some good points about the technology, and it’s clear from further reading that the usual has happened with popsci reporting. I really recommend you read the source paper - it does an excellent job of explaining exactly the points I raised initially and why the scope was restricted so sharply.
Really, if you don’t want an informed opinion and you show open and naked contempt for “armchair experts” (because obviously a layperson could never gain knowledge without the hierarchy of academia), why are you sharing it at all? If it’s just to aggregate links and pick fights, Reddit is right over there; and they’d love another passionate user of your caliber.
Awww, it’s adorable that you think you made good points. And being actually informed is precisely how I can spot trolls like you. Not really sure why you keep replying. You’re not going to convince me to have any respect for you by continuing to double down here.
I like a good pointless slapfight as much as the next lemming, but I suspect the mods don’t share my enthusiasm. And while I sincerely appreciate your bold confidence, you should reign it in a little - it’s a pitiful hope to cling to that I’d do this to win your respect, or really for any other reason besides a sincere interest in the subject matter (which you’ve made clear we do not share) and an admitted curiosity about why you’ve started this with such open hostility.
Sincerely, if you’d like to know more about this subject I’d be happy to discuss it! It’s really a very interesting developing field of study, if you enjoy that sort of intellectual diversion. ANN-first design, while obviously open to exploitation by the douchebag class, has had some very promising results slip through the cracks of unrepentant capitalism.
A cutting wit unique in its originality, truly. I may never recover. You’re welcome to address the question tho - this tech seems like a novelty more than anything.
Ah yes, another armchair expert who clearly knows more than the researchers at Nanjing University and the editors of Nature Sensors.
Power constraints are not a concern. Drones and satellites just have unlimited batteries, right? They definitely don’t need to shave off every milliwatt possible.
Hybrid CV systems are already perfect. Why would anyone bother innovating when we can just keep moving massive amounts of redundant data through multiple conversion stages? It’s not like that burns energy or anything.
But sure, your armchair analysis definitely outweighs peer reviewed research from an international team that built a working prototype with molybdenum disulfide phototransistors.
They probably just forgot to Google ‘hybrid CV’ before publishing.
… You feeling okay? It’s really dumb to be crashing out this hard over popsci reporting. Maybe go give the actual paper a read? It doesn’t answer my criticisms, hence presenting them here, but at least we’ll have a common basis on which to discuss my criticism of the research.
(well… they did offer me a job, so I suppose they must see something of value in my work? It was pretty far outside my field though. And, honestly, they’re just shotgunning out offers to any researchers that publish)
Sounds like one of use is definitely crashing out. Is google blocked at the troll farm?
I …what? “No u” is really the best you could think up? I get the feeling you’re not here in good faith; this seems like it might not be a conversation with much value, intellectual or entertainment.
absolutely hilarious that you think you deserve some sophisticated response here, and obviously this conversation has no value, you have absolutely nothing of substance to say, run along and do your trolling elsewhere
Implying I expect sophistication is a tad optimistic, but I suppose I’m not so heartless as to deny you your vices.
Chores aside though, why are we doing this? I made some good points about the technology, and it’s clear from further reading that the usual has happened with popsci reporting. I really recommend you read the source paper - it does an excellent job of explaining exactly the points I raised initially and why the scope was restricted so sharply.
Really, if you don’t want an informed opinion and you show open and naked contempt for “armchair experts” (because obviously a layperson could never gain knowledge without the hierarchy of academia), why are you sharing it at all? If it’s just to aggregate links and pick fights, Reddit is right over there; and they’d love another passionate user of your caliber.
Awww, it’s adorable that you think you made good points. And being actually informed is precisely how I can spot trolls like you. Not really sure why you keep replying. You’re not going to convince me to have any respect for you by continuing to double down here.
I like a good pointless slapfight as much as the next lemming, but I suspect the mods don’t share my enthusiasm. And while I sincerely appreciate your bold confidence, you should reign it in a little - it’s a pitiful hope to cling to that I’d do this to win your respect, or really for any other reason besides a sincere interest in the subject matter (which you’ve made clear we do not share) and an admitted curiosity about why you’ve started this with such open hostility.
Sincerely, if you’d like to know more about this subject I’d be happy to discuss it! It’s really a very interesting developing field of study, if you enjoy that sort of intellectual diversion. ANN-first design, while obviously open to exploitation by the douchebag class, has had some very promising results slip through the cracks of unrepentant capitalism.