Tangential, but I'm surprised to see a paper published in a Nature-affiliated journal that misuses the notation "dT" like that.
It's like they've combined 3 different conceptual-errors into one, where there're several obvious reasons to object to the notation, but no-one caught it.
---
Actually, is this an AI-written paper? Or maybe AI-edited?
It's got a strange number of errors and inconsistencies, and these errors seem biased toward superficial associations.
It's like they've combined 3 different conceptual-errors into one, where there're several obvious reasons to object to the notation, but no-one caught it.
---
Actually, is this an AI-written paper? Or maybe AI-edited?
It's got a strange number of errors and inconsistencies, and these errors seem biased toward superficial associations.