Is the probabilistic logic result something so obviously something they should have published that you would recommend they don’t take time to recover and then consider before announcing similar results? I’m fine with them drawing the line at e.g. “if something raises a red flag to anyone, we take a step back and consider first, even if it might be kind of embarrassing to have done so”.
Sure, if there logic is something like that, that might make sense especially since then if the status of how relevant results really does change in a few years, one also will be less likely to notice the immediate discrepancy. Hopefully Luke can clarify what sort of thought process is going on here.
Is the probabilistic logic result something so obviously something they should have published that you would recommend they don’t take time to recover and then consider before announcing similar results? I’m fine with them drawing the line at e.g. “if something raises a red flag to anyone, we take a step back and consider first, even if it might be kind of embarrassing to have done so”.
Sure, if there logic is something like that, that might make sense especially since then if the status of how relevant results really does change in a few years, one also will be less likely to notice the immediate discrepancy. Hopefully Luke can clarify what sort of thought process is going on here.