If you read it as well and deem this paper of good quality I suppose we can just agree to disagree and move on what can I say. I believe in following the truth wherever it may lead not fitting data to politically motivated conclusions which this work is very clearly doing, sad state of affairs.
Best of luck, stranger. See you around.
It does not matter to me in which direction the paper is politically slanted one iota, or what conclusions it so desperately seeks. The ends don't justify the means, sorry.
It matters very much to me that it isn't anything like science, and worse, that it masquerades. You can dance around this all you want.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
Are you referring to something I posted in this thread as unsubstantive and flamebaity?
To be clear, nothing I wrote here was written intended as such.
Edit (since I can't reply): You've met me at a very strange time in my life, what can I say, I'll keep those notes in mind.
To be clear, nothing from this particular thread?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35563582 was unsubstantive flamebait.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35568205 was flamebait ("So... Schizophrenia?")
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35567227 was particularly bad ("What on earth are you talking about?", "Have you been watching the dictator drunk again?", etc.)
You've been breaking the site guidelines in other places too (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35534129).