Thanks everyone for all the kind comments.
@defxor: Its great to hear that its been useful.
@coinonymous: We try and do vector graphics whenever we can - can be a pain to get the images produced right, but leads to smaller sizes, and its clearer, and as you point out, people can zoom way in and check out the details.
@hugolp:
Thanks for your positive comments.
What I am not happy about is the way you have chosen to promote it. And I know how the college ambient work so I know how you manage to get attention. I think the way you did it was dishonest.
I think we'll just have to agree to differ on this.
I cant really parse that 'college ambient work' bit. If you are saying that, in general, there are problems with why people do research in academia, well, speaking personally, I'd agree that there
sometimes are, and you do
sometimes see people overselling things, supposedly because it helps them get funding (this generally happens somewhere above the level of the lowly research student though!)
I don't want to get sidetracked into this big debate about the relative merits of academia. The credit and funding systems definitely have flaws (which differ country by country - Im in Ireland).
But academia is huge. There's a selection bias here - you are more likely to read about the people who oversell things. There's a lot of good people, doing good work, and in a lot of cases, the profit motives and conflicts of interest, are probably less than in most industry positions. (And arguably less, if you want to talk about conflicts, than in a system like Bitcoin, where there are a lot of early adopters who have a lot of Bitcoins, which must surely have some influence to see Bitcoin portrayed in a positive light!)
But anyway, yeah, there are conflicts everywhere, and you've got to be careful of them, and it pays to be a little skeptical that research you are reading might be oversold.
But, its just as wrong to think research is
always oversold, just because people are trying to get it out there. In general, I'd be more likely to trust in the good faith of people doing research, than people in a lot of other positions.
So, that's speaking generally. Speaking specifically, I know I've no nefarious motives here (though I guess that doesn't help you).
And I've spent a while answering your specific criticisms here - I think satisfactorily, but you are welcome to disagree - think that's all I can do!