>Pretty vague and not really quantifiable. You would think an article making a bold claim would contain more than a single, hand-wavy quote from an actual scien

>Pretty vague and not really quantifiable. You would think an article making a bold claim would contain more than a single, hand-wavy quote from an actual scientist. Why? What purpose would quotes serve better than a paper with numbers and code? Just seems like nitpicking here. The article could have gone without a single quote (or had several more) and it wouldn't really change anything. And that quote is not really vague in the context of the article.