If this comment thread is the way the self proclaimed smartest forum on the web deals with articles like this then we're doomed.
This article contributes zero actual evidence, is littered with out of context quotes (including of all places the title), doesn't appear to understand the science or the probabilities involved and finally is clearly written with an agenda.
It shouldn't have been posted to HN in the first place, it just serves to divide, not to find fact. If there is an article that deals with the actual evidence available in a neutral manner it would be nice to read, but opinion-masquerading-as-fact is not.
This article contributes zero actual evidence, is littered with out of context quotes (including of all places the title), doesn't appear to understand the science or the probabilities involved and finally is clearly written with an agenda.
It shouldn't have been posted to HN in the first place, it just serves to divide, not to find fact. If there is an article that deals with the actual evidence available in a neutral manner it would be nice to read, but opinion-masquerading-as-fact is not.