Appreciate you being transparent here with the headline, but it is interesting that you chose to remove the positive word ("does") and chose to keep the negative one "doesnt" for the submission.
And about removing the "scaling does" part: (1) it's Gary Marcus, so the point is surely and factually about the "does not" part, and (2) my reading of the article did not show any relevant "does" part.
Normally I also note the edits in the title, as in:
# What scaling_ doesn’t buy_: peeling back the hype [on] Google‘s trendy Nano Banana
but on this occasion I thought it was not worth it.
Original title (too long): What scaling does and doesn’t buy you: peeling back the hype surrounding Google‘s trendy Nano Banana
Appreciate you being transparent here with the headline, but it is interesting that you chose to remove the positive word ("does") and chose to keep the negative one "doesnt" for the submission.
When you trim for space you have to make choices.
And about removing the "scaling does" part: (1) it's Gary Marcus, so the point is surely and factually about the "does not" part, and (2) my reading of the article did not show any relevant "does" part.
Normally I also note the edits in the title, as in:
# What scaling_ doesn’t buy_: peeling back the hype [on] Google‘s trendy Nano Banana
but on this occasion I thought it was not worth it.
me reading this: photoshop is "officially behind"? That's a stretch
opens LinkedIn: PHOTOSHOP IS DEAD PHOTOSHOP IS DEAD PHOTOSHOP IS DEAD ...closes LinkedIn