This is a lot of text, details and hair splitting just to say "modeling things like this is bullshit". It's engaging "seriously" and "on the merits" with someth

This is a lot of text, details and hair splitting just to say "modeling things like this is bullshit". It's engaging "seriously" and "on the merits" with something that from the very start was just marketing fluff packaged as some kind of prediction. I'm not sure if the author did anyone a favor with this write-up. More than anything, it buries the main point ("this kind of forecasting is fundamentally bullshit") under a bunch of complicated-sounding details that lend credibility to the original predictions, which the original authors now get to agrue about and thank people for pointing out "minor issues which we have now addressed in the updated version".