<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Neural Fields in Visual Computing and Beyond · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2111.11426/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2111.11426/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Neural Fields in Visual Computing and Beyond — mentioned by fwilliams</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31009813</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2111.11426:31009813</guid><pubDate>Wed, 13 Apr 2022 00:23:33 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;To quote the article: &amp;gt; But even putting aside the fact that claiming someone else&amp;#x27;s writing as one&amp;#x27;s own is wrong, the value in survey papers is in how they re-frame the field. A survey paper that just copies directly from the prior paper hasn&amp;#x27;t contributed anything new to the field that couldn&amp;#x27;t be obtained from a list of references. Good survey papers can be important contributions in their own right (e.g. [1]). A good survey should contextualize works within a subject area with respect to each other and identify high level trends/ideas in that subject. These connections are not only…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2111.11426/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CV</category></item></channel></rss>
