The paper linked in that quote was from 2019, not 2014. The paper is outdated because the DoD later addressed their concern about error bars. https://blogs.sci

The paper linked in that quote was from 2019, not 2014. The paper is outdated because the DoD later addressed their concern about error bars. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/it-takes-a-village-to-declassify-an-error-bar/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/it-takes-a... > And then you jump from "...a paper that is slightly too old for my taste" to "highly suspect!" It's worse than mere age. The paper he chooses to "conclude" a major section is cherry-picked from the middle of the story, within a highly-publicized drama within the academic field. It's unlikely that anyone even casually following could be unaware of the real ending to the story. The author is either incompetent at research or deceptive. Either way, "highly suspect" is warranted.