> This is a reference to the confidence early researchers had, as a result of the rapid pace of progress. Your literal reading of it is disingenuous. You can't

> This is a reference to the confidence early researchers had, as a result of the rapid pace of progress. Your literal reading of it is disingenuous. You can't have it both ways. It's either a factual article or a puff piece. (It's a puff piece by the way). > An article is limited in the number of caveats it can include. The author does not introduce ANY caveats which get in the way of her points. > If you're going to accuse people of lying, you have a moral responsibility to be more rigorous with your arguments. http://wondermark.com/1k62/ http://wondermark.com/1k62/