Any argument purporting to show <20 OOM in cost-effectiveness from astronomical waste considerations is almost always wrong for this kind of reason.
I agree with the rest of your comment, but I’m a bit confused about this phrasing.
I could be wrong, but I think he meant to use “>” instead of “<”
I agree with the rest of your comment, but I’m a bit confused about this phrasing.
I could be wrong, but I think he meant to use “>” instead of “<”