nbourbaki

The article mentions that quantum computers are “an order of magnitude” faster than traditional computing. My understanding is that at the moment, this is incorrect: (noise-free) quantum computers are better at certain specific tasks, and otherwise, are no better than classical computers.

I think the crux of the problem lies in the sheer number of students who attend college today; as the author points out:

    "It is true that only about 5 percent of the British population attended university in my own student days, ... [today] that figure has risen to around 50 percent..."

In the article, the author claims universities have abandoned their roles as centres of critical thinking due to capitalistic forces. While I think this is true, I also believe that our collective attitude towards university shares the blame. Unfortunately, college is seen as the only legitimate path to success after high school.

If students had more opportunities to explore their interests, instead of being funnelled into university, perhaps universities could re-establish themselves as institutions where critical discussion takes place.

All of the 'correctness' and 'proofs' are useful for a separate crowd, and should also be included, but in a separate section because they are for a different user, namely, for other academics who are well versed in the domain.

Isn't the audience of an academic paper other academics? Placing proofs and details in a separate section is convenient for the layman but bothersome for the intended audience. Often, it is precisely these details that are important. In mathematics for example, using new methods to give simpler proofs of old theorems is very useful; here, other researchers would care about how particular details are resolved.