Or it's like a huge citation rings and mutual salary justifications?
If you have absolutely nothing to add to the discussion, please consider not saying anything at all. You're just adding noise to an otherwise interesting discussion.
At least NVidia is doing something. You? You're just wasting everyone's time with your trolling.
"At least Nvidia is doing something" - like what exactly? Sounds more like a PR move than anything. They can have a more tangible effect donating money for actual efforts to help people probably.
Whenever I said "something is better than nothing" my dad would immediately reply, "but nothing is better than nonsense." He was a smart man indeed.
I also worked quite a few years in academia, including participating in a few international research programs, and although the indentured servitude facet is indeed the problem and the "publish or perish" pressure puts an emphasis on an aspect that is not very relevant, I have to say you're completely overblowing and misrepresenting stuff that has no meaning or consequence. If you ever had a career in academia you'd be clearly aware that the only thing that counts is whether your paper gets approved. Citation volumes are entirely meaningless beyond the vanity aspect of it all, as it only has an impact in main path analysis, and only if you use an algorithm that weighs edges wrt connectivity, which is a bit meaningless. Thus you're complaining about something that at most has an impact on your search results, and only if you are a competent researcher who doesn't exercise any independent reasoning, which is absurd. Thus, what leads you to believe that your concerns are meaningful or relevant to the discussion?
It feels like you tried desperately to pull an appeal to authority that has no substance or merit, quite frankly, and in a way that puts your credibility into question.
Anyways, by citation rings I mean more than about the h-index or just the citation counts. It also includes cliquey things such as who cites who, who's a friendly reviewer and who's not, how do you continue to keep publishing in a way that makes you look like the expert more than finding out the truth, etc. But seems like you're an expert who knows better so I'll leave this conversation here.
That all depends on the content of the papers. Protein folding is immensely complex.
An actual progress probably would be something like : effective cure for a disease found.
This is such a silly way to frame things. Often the reason you don't know a cure for a disease is because you aren't even really sure what causes the, or even if the disease has just one cause. You might imagine we're waiting for a "Cure for Autism" but what if we eventually discover that there are 20 different conditions that might manifest as autism and each one needs a separate treatment? Do you have the patience for that or will you just throw your hands in the air and complain about no progress?
There has been lots of progress in therapies and treatments for diseases, much of it hampered by the fact that protein interaction and biological pathways are so complex and there's so much we don't understand. So before we can "find a cure" we need to understand how the systems work. For example, in 2009 a drug called Cetuximab was approved to treat colorectal cancer, but ONLY in patients without a specific genetic mutation (KRAS) that renders the drug ineffective. That knowledge comes from understanding cancer genomics which requires a lot of statistics and computational analysis.
I'm not saying FAH is a dramatic world-changing part of this progress but it's clear that there is a LOT we don't know and finding cures for many diseases is going to take a lot of incremental progress that doesn't yield anything obvious immediately.
Papers are where researchers report on their progress by presenting specific findings to the world. Confusing papers for science is like confusing the scoreboard for the sports.