Open dickhardt opened 2 weeks ago
I am generally OK with a much more concise introduction (but I don't find the current Introduction offensive either). If we were to use a shorter intro I would want to see the following addressed:
Thanks @rohanmahy, I generally agree with that.
Note that @danielfett has kindly (foolishly?) said he'd take a pass at reviewing or refining or rewriting or reworking this and/or the current (unoffensive, thanks!) Introduction.
provide more context on what the problem is and why this work is happening, with a summary of how it works
deleted spurious language that reads like a patent application