it fails to understand the root issue mentioned on the article it is responding to. The original article says: everyone settled down for a crapy simulation sof

it fails to understand the root issue mentioned on the article it is responding to. The original article says: everyone settled down for a crapy simulation software and implementations are terrible. so, the conclusion of this piece "there is no way to realistic improve" is way off. Maybe he should get at least a couple years under the belt before trying becoming a pundit.