What's the argument here, though? When we find a single bridge, all the complexity classes change, so we can only really divide the problems here into "ones we

What's the argument here, though? When we find a single bridge, all the complexity classes change, so we can only really divide the problems here into "ones we've found polynomial time solutions for" and "ones we haven't". There may be something interesting about the ones we havent -- or we just didn't think of something obvious/a lot of special cases with high degree polynomials. It's worth mentioning the near collisions happen in the low-dimensionality region of the border -- which doesn't have the same separating forecast, as it becomes easier to touch in higher dimensions. We can think of a sphere and a cube -- in low dimensions, a sphere lies inside of a cube; in higher dimensions, the surface bulges past the sides. You just don't see it until something like the 17th dimension. (Similarly, knot theory explodes with complexity in higher dimensions.) Taking a "scientific approach" to asymptotic problems just makes the CS people advocating it seem vaguely hacky, since they're not even advancing a proper density argument -- it's just such a low-dimensional, poorly bounded argument that it's clear they didn't make a real calculation, they tried to dress up personal feelings in science.