Until somebody invents a time machine it will never be a solved problem.
The paper obviously isn’t using “solved” to mean “will predict correctly 100% of the time”. The paper points out that even given the constraint that we don’t have a time machine, there are things which could be done to improve accuracy, and lays out some possible new approaches to research.
You presumably know this though, which leaves me wondering why you left the comment you did.
I guess people like being bitter for no real reason.
Paper looks interesting.
How do you know they were being bitter?
And, if they were being bitter, how do you know they didn’t have a reason?
And, if they were being bitter for no reason, how do you know they liked it?
You sound pretty bitter; do you like it?
Thanks for checking in :) ‘Bitter’ definitely doesn’t fit where I was at when I wrote that comment, or how I’m feeling now. I’ve been feeling optimistic and curious while posting in this thread.
The questions I asked aren’t rhetorical; I’d actually like readers to try answering them.