For some reason, there’s a contingent of people that think that by poking holes and pooh-poohing things, it gives them clout. It happens far too often in tech and I hate it. Look how often the post has “can’t” or “couldn’t”.
Instead of giving reasons why something sucks, how about being supportive and talking about why it’s awesome and what possibilities this opens up?
I don't think OP is being overly negative in relation to the tone of the rest of the comments here. Nobody else up until this comment had mentioned anything about the actual important performance characteristics that the paper's authors' are claiming, and this does put it into perspective with the current state of the art. And OP does even end on an optimistic note anyway. No need to resort to personal attacks.
Edit: I appreciate you toning down the more combative part of your comment.
While I often agree that the tone on these kinds of posts on HN is often annoyingly and unproductively cynical, I think him just pointing out the current limitations of the result is not that much of a problem. It isn't like he's making the overused "perpetually 20 years away" joke about potentially revolutionary technologies.
For some reason, there’s a contingent of people that think that by poking holes and pooh-poohing things, it gives them clout. It happens far too often in tech and I hate it. Look how often the post has “can’t” or “couldn’t”.
Instead of giving reasons why something sucks, how about being supportive and talking about why it’s awesome and what possibilities this opens up?