I’m saying that the authors summarized their findings without caveats, and that those caveats would dramatically change how most people interpret the results.
(Note that, despite the “MIT” name being attached, this isn’t an academic paper, and doesn’t seem to be trying to hold itself to those standards.)
I recommend emailing the authors and asking for clarification. I’ve done this more than once in the past when I’ve had thoughts about papers I’ve read and have gotten some extremely helpful, illuminating replies.
I always worry about bothering people, but I get the sense that, rather than being annoyed, people find it rewarding that anyone took an interest in their work, or at least don’t mind answering a quick email.
I’m saying that the authors summarized their findings without caveats, and that those caveats would dramatically change how most people interpret the results.
(Note that, despite the “MIT” name being attached, this isn’t an academic paper, and doesn’t seem to be trying to hold itself to those standards.)
I recommend emailing the authors and asking for clarification. I’ve done this more than once in the past when I’ve had thoughts about papers I’ve read and have gotten some extremely helpful, illuminating replies.
I always worry about bothering people, but I get the sense that, rather than being annoyed, people find it rewarding that anyone took an interest in their work, or at least don’t mind answering a quick email.