That article is an excellent story, but I’m afraid I’m sufficiently jaded by science journalism in practice that I’d want to know Schadt’s opinion of it before taking its contents on board wholesale.
Edit: I’ve just realised something: the calculation that produced the above statement was optimising for social value of the story and its contents to be passed on to others, rather than anything about the science. Then I thought “well, that was silly.” Then I thought “actually, no it wasn’t, that’s its main practical use to me.” More layers at 11.
That article is an excellent story, but I’m afraid I’m sufficiently jaded by science journalism in practice that I’d want to know Schadt’s opinion of it before taking its contents on board wholesale.
Edit: I’ve just realised something: the calculation that produced the above statement was optimising for social value of the story and its contents to be passed on to others, rather than anything about the science. Then I thought “well, that was silly.” Then I thought “actually, no it wasn’t, that’s its main practical use to me.” More layers at 11.