I am no expert on this topic, but this story has a strong "bad science journalism" smell. The pattern is (1) longstanding complex open problem (2) stupidly sim

I am no expert on this topic, but this story has a strong "bad science journalism" smell. The pattern is (1) longstanding complex open problem (2) stupidly simple "solution" claimed as a panacea. Generally with this pattern, the simple solution turns out to be well known among the top experts, and really isn't a solution to the whole problem, just a tiny part of it.