You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Thanks! 'Remarkably similar' is not surprising because @fchollet read our paper before proposing ARC, but then got afflicted with source amnesia.
ARC is ok, but brushes fundamental problems like 'objectness' under the carpet. Those cannot be solved using 'connect lines' etc.
You keep accusing me of plagiarism. FYI, ARC was near-finalized before your paper was released. I started working on it in late 2017. I took exactly nothing from your paper, which I vaguely skimmed after you sent it to me (which you did after I had talked to you about ARC...)
And it never occurred to me to cite your paper because it isn't a relevant citation. It doesn't constitute a reference survey, it did not originate any key idea that my paper uses, and it does not offer a direct alternative to any of the 2 things my paper proposes (ARC + def).
You don't just cite things because they share one or two vague similarities (which would involve citing tens of thousands of paper in every paper). You cite things either for attribution, or because they would constitute a useful reference for the reader to check out.
Yeah, and we started working on it in 2014. It doesn't matter whether you took anything from our paper or not -- it is prior work. You are *expected to read* prior work, take things from it, and then build on it.
As I explained, you don't cite papers based on topic similarity or tool overlap. If I write a "RL for games" paper once, it doesn't mean every subsequent "RL for games" paper must cite it (despite significant keyword overlap). You cite papers for one of three reasons:
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
