> Not sure why this is news outside of the Twitter-techno-pseudo-academic-influencer bubble. The paper is making the rounds despite being a weak result because

> Not sure why this is news outside of the Twitter-techno-pseudo-academic-influencer bubble. The paper is making the rounds despite being a weak result because it confirms what people want, for non-technical reasons, to be true. You see this kind of thing all the time in other fields: for decades, the media has elevated p-hacked psychology studies on three undergrads into the canon of pop psychology because these studies provide a fig leaf of objective backing for pre-determined conclusions