Even on HN, where we never tire of self-praise, I think the article is more helpful to the average reader than the paper itself. What percentage of us are in a position to critically examine the experimental methods? I don&#x27;t know, but my naive assumption is that a conversational presentation of the publication and its consequences is more welcome than the publication itself. Regardless, the primary source is one hyperlink and university subscription away for all who care to read it.<p>Of course it&#x27;s absurd, that was my point. And obviously I disagree that Stanford has nothing of value to say about its researchers&#x27; work: I think they&#x27;ve managed well in this case.