you said it was wrong to say that there were sensors. it wasn’t. you also bait and switch: my objection wasn’t purely to title; it was to framing of blog, in screenshot. suggestion was that better title could have reduced misunderstanding, not that original title was false.
-
I'd imagine all of them, assuming you are referring to the full manuscript. As far as top journals go, it's an excellent robotics result. For some reason, it seems that scale up projects of this form are always evaluated by unreasonably high standards applied nowhere else.
no. was referring to characterizing the sensor-free result as “impressive” despite a score of zero in the main condition of interest. any good reviewer would tone that down. paper itself i would publish with revision; as i said multiple times here result itself is impressive
-
-
They could publish the manuscript omitting that entire column based on success from 15-scrambles alone. They could have equally well published it with no result without sensors. The main condition of interest you've defined is a much higher bar than any major conference.
-
yes but it would have been outright deceitful to have promoted the paper with videos of robots “solving” cubes on that basis; whole basis of the claim and title was the instrumented roe in the column in which uninstrumented performance was zero.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.