> If we're being charitable we can say that the core thrust of Taleb's point remains unchallenged, while the details he quantified are either wrong or lacking i

> If we're being charitable we can say that the core thrust of Taleb's point remains unchallenged, while the details he quantified are either wrong or lacking in sufficient rigor to be refuted. It seems we could put this a little stronger, as the article claims to refute all the quantifiable evidence for the core point. As far as I can tell, it does so.