Biologist's perspective: this paper is not about the biology. The simulation performed here has zero biological interest - the point of the paper was to show how efficient and scalable their software is. This article about the paper is terrible, but honestly I feel like they should be given a pass - it's hard to justify to a lay audience that understands neither DNA nor memory bandwidth why you would choose to study something that is of no use to the field.

There's an inherent tension when doing a method development paper - if your result is too fantastical it's hard to know whether it's an artifact of your (potentially faulty) technique, and if the thing you're studying is well-understood then it serves as a good control, but it's less interesting. I suspect they chose the latter path since it requires no validation via existing methodologies.