tree3
Joined 7 years ago
Joined 7 years ago
What?
Because studies require a lot more time and money, while a model is just on a computer and can be constantly and quickly updated as things change?
> I'm not sure I call something like 10,000 dead a highlight.
Given that people before were saying the death rate was 2-5%, yes, it is a good thing.
I find it really strange that people in this thread are trying to be mad about a low death rate...
YT's spam filter is notoriously terrible so I don't think this is far out there.
This statement reflects the writers' large ego, not reality. It's a shame how this point of view is prominent in the scientific community. I've seen similar rude statements from academic scientists who say that working in R&D at a corporation isn't "real science".
I don't think this is true. Take all the non-tech companies that rely on software and hire tons of engineers, such as insurance and banking.