Your point is well taken, but ephemeral nyms aren't new. I actually like knowing they are out there. You need to evaluate what you read on its own merits. And there's an aspect of rebelling against the logic of accumulation.
When did public denunciations become popular in the US? I know they've been a part of the Chinese internet since the early days. It wasn't always so intense in the US.
How do you distinguish a nonsense model from a good model when you don't have a writeup, you don't have validation data, and it is not possible to run cheap experiments?
I'm not saying you can't make money selling an RNG with a slick UI, you certainly can.
This is something I would buy if I had confidence in the simulator.
Why not write a blog or a brief white paper giving some hint of what's going on behind the scenes?
Generally speaking, every bit of energy someone spends being cool (good UI) comes at the expense of energy spent being good. Maybe you've done some serious work on the simulator, but I can't tell from your marketing material.
The UI is slick, but why should I trust this black box?
The "how does it work" section doesn't even mention
* modeling assumptions
* training data (if any)
* validation (if any)
Why is this better than, say, giving the 25-75% range around my "best guess" assuming log-normal duration and the variance of prior project completion times? Can you demonstrate that it's better than that?
That's a little disingenuous. For other platforms, the constraint is fuel. Afterburner guzzles fuel. Only F-35 requires expensive and protracted maintenance after supersonic flight.
Which is another area where F-35 is lacking: range. Without external fuel tanks it can't fight in the Pacific.
This article contains no new information, and could be accurately summarized "guy whose boss spent $1 trillion on the F-35 says the F-35 is a good idea."
He also calls it a supersonic fighter, which isn't true. The coatings cannot withstand sustained periods of supersonic flight.
I'm curious why it didn't happen here immediately, but did elsewhere.