5 ms·
You should restate the main point of the article and then explain why the top comment is a quibble about an unrelated detail. If the readers aren't as knowledg
by sillysaurus 13y ago
You should restate the main point of the article and then explain why the top comment is a quibble about an unrelated detail. If the readers aren't as knowledgeable as yourself, then you have an opportunity to change that rather than complain about it.
- pygy_ 13y agoI'm not qualified to discuss the main point, but enough to separate chaff from wheat in this case. The article is about quantum cryptography. The author gives credit card processing as a layman example of encrypted communication, and states, erroneously, that the connection process is slow because of the SSL handshake. It is true that SSL increases latency, but it is not the main factor, as harshreality said. However, the example is an aside, and the error is a small aside in the aside. Not really worth discussing, and it definitely doesn't have its place at the top of the thread, where it was when I first posted. It is still currently the second comment. Note that harshreality improved his post after the fact... or did I miss the good bits when I first read it? Hoist with my own petard? If so, sincere appologies.
- harshreality 13y agoNothing else in the article was particularly worth discussing either; other comments are detailing how this is not a breakthrough, or making minor clarifications, with beloch's in particular highlighting an alternative that might actually have interesting applications.
- pygy_ 13y agoWhy comment, then?