It's incredible. If you can afford it, the subscription is always great and an excellent chance to try oil from different olives that typically don't get pressed.
I have serious problems with this article's headline: "Two years ago, NASA dismissed and mocked an amateur’s criticisms of its asteroids database. Now Nathan Myhrvold is back, and his papers have passed peer review."
The two people who actually did the mocking and dismissing are a UCLA professor and a JPL employee, not NASA employees. The only person who's legally allowed to speak on behalf of NASA (David Morrison) says what this guy is doing is great, and somehow that means NASA "mocked and dismissed" this man's claims?
I get that the author and the editorial staff (who likely chose that headline) are shooting for a David vs. Goliath angle, but really?
It's incredible. If you can afford it, the subscription is always great and an excellent chance to try oil from different olives that typically don't get pressed.