Back to the Reuters article. What's worse than reporting on non-peer-reviewed, poorly written, "research" papers posted to the web? Reporting on vague descriptions of a "discovery" attributed only unnamed sources. 11/
What's their evidence that there's a big breakthrough? Something that has "vast computing resources" can do grade-school level math. You know what else can do grade-school level math? A fucking calculator that can run on a tiny solar cell. Way more reliably, too, undoubtedly. 12/
Could not verify, eh? And yet decided it was worth reporting on? Hmm... 13/