I don't have any political goals and don't give a damn about politics, however, being a professional software developer who spend his whole life in open-source,

I don't have any political goals and don't give a damn about politics, however, being a professional software developer who spend his whole life in open-source, I can't help but wonder if you are for real in pp. 1-3? > It's a randomized model so this isn't a disaster What you're saying here is that no matter what distribution properties the "randomness" has it's ok to substitute one with another, right? > There aren't a bunch of unit tests It isn't a Microsoft Windows, you know, where a lack of unit tests and uncaught bugs could be potentially fixed in the next release (or not). Report 9 is out, the harm is done. #4 isn't an argument as we aren't arguing about epidemiological characteristics of the code, but about its validity and correctness. I am loosing the interest in this discussion very quickly, because it is full of straw-man constructions and intellectual dishonesty, starting with the fact that the original code/model has never been shown to anyone besides of a very small group of hand-picked developers to groom it into some presentable form. Pity...