I agree with everything you have said in this thread, the one area I would take a slightly different approach with is that some of the best algorithmic advance

I agree with everything you have said in this thread, the one area I would take a slightly different approach with is that some of the best algorithmic advances do come from people and teams looking at a problem anew -- without examining all previous works and failures. Are they likely to find a way to jump forward? no. Are they likely to fall into the same traps and dead ends that are well documented in this space? yep. But in general I believe we should temper the negative feedback with constructive details: Hey have you seen this previous and very similar work in the same space, here is some info where and how they failed to scale. Taking a stance (even an implied one) that this is not novel and therefore you should stop could have been made against many of the teams working in vast areas of algorithms and architectures that have lead to jumps forward. CS is and should be science and to that end, our current knowledge and understanding is simply what is known today and must remain mutable to move forward. While their current approach is not scalable and a dead end, who knows if this experience will lead them to identify previously unrealized solutions (even if partial).