I think this post could be really good, and perhaps there should be an effort to make this post as good as it can be. Right now I think it has a number of issues.
It’s too short. It moves very quickly past the important technical details, trusting the user to pick them up. I think it would be better if it was a bit longer and luxuriated on the important technical bits.
It is very physics-brained. Ideally we could get some math-literate non-physicists to go over this with help from a physicist to do a better job phrasing it in ways that are unfamiliar to non-physicists.
It should be published somewhere without part 2. Part 2 is intracommunity discourse, Part 1 is a great explainer, and I’d love to be able to link to it without part 2 as a consideration.
I think this post could be really good, and perhaps there should be an effort to make this post as good as it can be. Right now I think it has a number of issues.
It’s too short. It moves very quickly past the important technical details, trusting the user to pick them up. I think it would be better if it was a bit longer and luxuriated on the important technical bits.
It is very physics-brained. Ideally we could get some math-literate non-physicists to go over this with help from a physicist to do a better job phrasing it in ways that are unfamiliar to non-physicists.
It should be published somewhere without part 2. Part 2 is intracommunity discourse, Part 1 is a great explainer, and I’d love to be able to link to it without part 2 as a consideration.