Hacker News Reader

My masters thesis is based on a single arXiv paper. I didn't know that arXiv had this questionable reputation, but it sure explains a lot.

The project is to make an FPGA implementation of a technique presented in an arXiv paper. The paper had some big gaps, so I had to spend a lot of time researching the technique, and I had very little time to spend on the actual implementation.

View on HN

arXiv is just a repository for papers to make them available before they are published/peer-reviewed. Just because a paper is on arXiv does not make it bad, but it doesn't mean that it is high quality either. Typically the people in the field will know which papers are important.

It's not bad, there are just some gaps. I expect a follow-up paper which explains everything thoroughly. I feel like my masters thesis should have started after that paper.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com