This is a lot like the time they awarded it for the invention of the blue LED, so I don’t think “hype” is a good explanation. I agree it’s bullshit though: it’s not a physics achievement in any meaningful way.
The Chemistry one for AlphaFold seems reasonable to me.
Huh, they really gave a Nobel in Physics specifically for the blue LED? It would have made sense for LED’s at all, but specifically for blue? That really is ridiculous.
I should be clearer that AlphaFold seems like something that could be a chemistry breakthrough sufficient for a prize, I’d even heard about how difficult the problem was before in other contexts, and it was hailed as a breakthrough at the time in what seemed like a genuine way, but I can’t evaluate its importance to the field as an outsider, and the terrible physics prize leads me to suspect their evaluations of the Chemistry prize might be flawed due to whatever pressures led to the selection of the Physics prize.
This is a lot like the time they awarded it for the invention of the blue LED, so I don’t think “hype” is a good explanation. I agree it’s bullshit though: it’s not a physics achievement in any meaningful way.
The Chemistry one for AlphaFold seems reasonable to me.
Huh, they really gave a Nobel in Physics specifically for the blue LED? It would have made sense for LED’s at all, but specifically for blue? That really is ridiculous.
I should be clearer that AlphaFold seems like something that could be a chemistry breakthrough sufficient for a prize, I’d even heard about how difficult the problem was before in other contexts, and it was hailed as a breakthrough at the time in what seemed like a genuine way, but I can’t evaluate its importance to the field as an outsider, and the terrible physics prize leads me to suspect their evaluations of the Chemistry prize might be flawed due to whatever pressures led to the selection of the Physics prize.