You misunderstand. I do not take issue with anything that’s written in the scientific paper. What I take issue with is how the paper is marketed to the general public. When you read the article you will see that it does not claim to “proof” that these models cannot reason. It merely points out some strengths and weaknesses of the models.

I mean… “proving” is also just marketing speak. There is no clear definition of reasoning, so there’s also no way to prove or disprove that something/someone reasons.

Yes indeed. You should ask your parents about the aunts and uncles you would have had if only smartphones had been invented 2 decades earlier. I am sure they will have tons of stories to tell /s.

Lol… yes my classmates died en masse.

Very nice explanation and only nitpicking, but saying that Thorium is much much safer than uranium implies that uranium nuclear plants are unsafe. In reality uranium nuclear power has one of the best safety records in energy production.