This is interesting, but unfortunately it also exemplifies what's rampant these days: unclear, sloppy, and inconclusive "reporting".
I wrote in their comments:
It's a *bit* of a flaw in the article that it does not state whether this little robot works in any way yet. I guess not. But it would be nice to have some statements about how far it is from working. I see it needs an external power-source to flap the wings, that's not promising, and the video does not show it flying.
"...have been working on bio-inspired robots that are about the same size as a bee, can fly and can work autonomously as a robotic colony." ... sounds like it is working. Not clear writing, folks.
This is from Wired, one of the largest tech-oriented publications we have, both on paper and digitally. Shouldn't there be a minimum standard for completeness of articles in such a publication? Surely the question of whether the technology they report on actually works yet or not, is one of the most essential elements to make clear.
it also exemplifies what's rampant these days: unclear, sloppy, and inconclusive "reporting"
ReplyDeleteThey must be graduates of the Eolake Stobblehouse school of thinking - lazy, lazy, lazy and expecting other people to fill in the blanks.