> So, the point of the entire article is that he didn’t like the title of paper he’s criticizing? I think the article makes a good point when it says that nobo

> So, the point of the entire article is that he didn’t like the title of paper he’s criticizing? I think the article makes a good point when it says that nobody else he spoke to about it had noticed this qualifier either. There is a long history of papers in physics making grand claims that lead to decades of mistaken beliefs. For instance, von Neumann's mistaken proof ruling out any kind of hidden variable theory from reproducing QM. Some people still cite this incorrect proof to this day to dismiss hidden variables, 70 years later. And once you make the caveat obvious, the paper is kind of a nothingburger that got published in Nature.