yes i know about the five variants on a cube; it’s still essentially one object. i responded to this elsewhere. since you still have neither addressed my key points nor apologized for inaccurately claiming i made an error on the sensors, we are done.
-
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.
-
-
But they didn't do that. The manuscript is quite clear. I've already said they could afford to add a line to the blog. Revise your slide and I will revise my original tweet.
-
no. that bit of deceit is yours, and yours alone.
- 2 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.