(Seriously, who said it has to be exactly "like" it? We use crash test dummies for testing car crash behavior, and they're nothing "like" humans either).
Maybe people were misconstruing "horrible science" as something other than low quality science? HN while being a seething pit of criticality, it has a low tolerance of anything that questions science or the march of technology.
>Maybe people were misconstruing "horrible science" as something other than low quality science?
It would only be "low quality" if it didn't fit their purpose. Which was some rough estimate, not to get the final word of whether humans survive an ejection.
Only density wise. Eggs or feta don't have a heart, brain matter, muscles, bones and other such stuff they'd liked to see their response, one presumes.
Maybe people were misconstruing "horrible science" as something other than low quality science? HN while being a seething pit of criticality, it has a low tolerance of anything that questions science or the march of technology.