I like when a paper lauds previous work by its own authors in the third person. "The problem was elegantly solved in [Muratori2009]..."
-
-
-
Replying to @won3d
@won3d@mattpharr@cmuratori "As [Giesen2008] fails to show in a particularly convincing way, beating motion compensation is fairly hard."1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rygorous
@rygorous@won3d@mattpharr Oh man! Don't diss your own research! You always gotta give props. Keep it positive, etc. :P2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@won3d@mattpharr Why not apply the particular brand of viciousness unique to scholarly debate to your work? Keeps you honest. :)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rygorous
@rygorous@won3d@mattpharr It would lead to horrible ratholing in subsequent papers, though, as people responded and re-responded.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@rygorous @won3d @mattpharr Eg., "Although erroneously criticized in the shoddy [Giesen2005], [Muratori2003] remains the gold standard."
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.