What is point 6 meant to mean? The author concludes that the code is unfit for purpose, because it was written by academics who ultimately have no incentive to

What is point 6 meant to mean? The author concludes that the code is unfit for purpose, because it was written by academics who ultimately have no incentive to write high quality code even when it's being used to make massive safety-critical decisions. This is hardly an unexpected conclusion given articles like this one and comments like yours, in which people defend buggy code on the grounds that academics shouldn't even be expected to produce work that isn't buggy. Academics are claiming they structurally can't produce correct, well documented code, not even when it's being used to advise governments. Hence the conclusion that maybe academics shouldn't be writing that sort of code: how is that not an obvious inference to draw? You seem to believe that any criticism of academia is "politically motivated". It's the same attitude that can be seen in Imperial College's non-answer to the problems: you can't state the private sector has higher standards than academia despite overwhelming evidence it does, because then you're partisan and should be automatically ignored? You're also an academic, aren't you? Surely that means you're the politically biased one here. How could it be otherwise?