Re:Misunderstanding (Score 1)

Actually, the Berkeley study wasn't published. It was posted as a working paper (or 'as if' a working paper -- I don't remember specifically how it was characterized).

In retrospect, the professor who headed up the study should have had it vetted before calling a press conference, but I suppose he thought that was a singularly effective way of getting more eyes on the problem.

At any rate, a lot more eyes got on the problem, and (like you, and like me) decided that the analysis didn't hold up. So the Berkeley folks withdrew the paper. The system worked.

...except that out on the Internet, you can still find people citing the original paper as if none of the rest of it ever happened. Also, there are a few people who came independently to similar conclusions, and are sticking to them. (I think that could be fairly called a fringe view.)

Like you, I don't foresee this story leading anywhere useful either.