Yes, I saw the article in Quanta. Issue here: Click-bait headlines. Uh, I go to the Quanta Web site ~once a day. I respect Quanta enough not to get torqued

Yes, I saw the article in Quanta. Issue here: Click-bait headlines. Uh, I go to the Quanta Web site ~once a day. I respect Quanta enough not to get torqued at any of their headlines. Also there I pay attention to what fields of content (usually science) and not much to the headlines. For the fields, I tend to pass over medical, social, psychological, and biological sciences and stay with math, physics, cosmology, and engineering, and it is easy enough to guess the field of the content without getting torqued at the headlines. Soooo, net, at Quanta I don't object to their headlines. For the article under discussion, yup, it is in the field of "combinatorics". I bumped into that field while scheduling the fleet at FedEx, in grad school, and in some business problems since. Result: Combinatorics is one heck of a challenge, both in the theory of the pure math (and the field can quickly become pure math, e.g., number theory) and also in the applications in business. In practice we squeak by with a little in theory and a lot in intuitive heuristics and relatively blind enumeration (that exploits powerful computing). So, it would be nice, maybe a biggie in various respects, to have some major progress in combinatorics. So, in such an attack, sure, it would be nice for someone some afternoon to have some big insight, bigger than heap sort instead of bubble sort, the fast Fourier transform instead of the direct approach, of error correcting codes instead of just three copies, etc. So, here is an invitation: Get a sharp, soft pencil, a big, soft eraser, a pad of paper, lean back, put feet up, and have some of the needed big ideas!!! All are invited and welcome!!! After some decades, we are still looking for that big insight!! So, what now? How to modify the attack? One way is, chip away at the problem wherever can see can get something new and apparently relevant, connected, or just anywhere in combinatorics -- or just follow the standard good research criteria of "new, correct, and significant" but at least in sight of the ballpark of combinatorics. So, with that approach, the results in the current Quanta article are an example of the desired and welcome progress.