> The explanation of the award involving the "interplay" is incredibly vague. What is the precise discovery or the paper that is being appreciated here?
Nobel award explanations are directed at the general public. Prizes themselves are awarded for a lifetime contribution to the field and/or to the society through the work in the field.
> I reserve the right to ban any commenter who mentions the Nobel Prize in a positive sense.
A substantive critique?
As far as I understood the post, the main weakness of the laureates' research is that it was not "hard" enough. And that the contribution of their research to the society should not matter. I am watching some lectures from laureates on YT now and I already wrote down a favourite quote from Syukuro Manabe: "You can never win, competing with nature in complexity".
As it's published within an hour of the announcement, you will allow me a measure of scepticism that this is really something "substantive" as opposed to merely "wordy".
“Obama got a prize for peace before he did anything of substance and before he started dozens of wars (Trump would have deserved the Nobel Prize in Peace about 50 times more than Obama but for obvious political reasons, he didn't get one).”
Not suggesting that Obama deserved the Nobel prize, but to suggest that Trump deserved it “50 times more” is a ridiculous thing to say no matter how you slice it.
It is also not the same body that selects for the Peace Prize as the Physics one (different body in a different country), so I don't see how that could be used in any way as an argument against these ones.
