Was there something wrong with the article?
Was there something wrong with the article?
And yes, failing to mention the little tiny detail of it not working at this date is a reason to be "disdainful" of an article like this; it encourages one to wreck weeks or months of ones life on something that we pretty much know doesn't work. Negligent at best, evil at worst.
(Excepting "siesta", which there is some evidence for, but isn't the promised miracle, either.)
This belief in polyphasic sleep reminds me of a guy I used to know who was a huge conspiracy theorist. He used to tell me that you could build a perpetual motion machine and generate unlimited energy from home and that he was doing it. I tried to reason with him and let him know that stuff was bunk but he never changed his mind despite his machine not working (for which he made some dumb face-saving excuse about not using the right material or something). No matter how much evidence and reasoning you present someone with beliefs like this they refuse to change their mind. The absence of evidence is not evidence for something.
We know polyphasic doesn't work not only because of all the failed attempts and what you talked about in your comment but also because of what we know about how the brain and human body works.
Also, as I said with "siesta", there is definitely evidence of alternate sleep schedules, basically to the point that it is so uncontroversial it is almost not worth discussing. What I don't see is any evidence that anyone not simply genetically disposed (for unknown reasons) to two-hour sleep nights can cut their required sleep per day by 3/4s or more by some crazy scheduling regimen.
The article would be much more credible if you backed it up with some solid science (has there been rigorous scientific studies on polyphasic sleep?). Without that, the credibility based on bloggers is no more than the credibility of snake oil salesmen.
Always amazes me how CS students and hackers think they can defy biology ...
Otherwise, good article.