Spoilers for the books, I disagree with the above but don't want to spoil it for anyone who doesn't want it spoiled. I think that's basically justified. He giv

Spoilers for the books, I disagree with the above but don't want to spoil it for anyone who doesn't want it spoiled. I think that's basically justified. He gives the foundation of their tech with a good amount of rigour and plausibility, and then as their civilisation develops and becomes equivalent to human civilisation and then significantly higher tech he obviously can't go into full detail on every piece of technology any more than you could write a story about modern human society while including a description of how every piece of our technology that is mentioned works, from first principles - the resulting book would be beyond the capability of any individual to write and would include far, far more descriptions of technological principles than actual plot. Just imagine if you wanted to tell a story about an interpersonal relationship between two people, but one of them uses a chat program on their phone and even though you've previously explained how our computation basically worked, now you have to explain neural networks and then LLMs - I think it's reasonable to just expect the viewer to imagine the things that aren't directly explained as being approximately as well explained and justified as everything else was. He does definitely go beyond hard sci-fi at the end of book two though. The idea that c as a limit is simply a result of our brains thinking too linearly is silly, and in general going beyond the hard laws of physics is where I draw the line.