This is a great statistical analysis and it was a pleasure to read, but I wasn't expecting the claims to be so poorly supported.
There's also a reply from one of the Meta authors there, worth checking out.
Which claims do you think are poorly supported? I'm the author; I tried to include everything other people need to repeat the same experiments. I've even had two people write in directly to me, stating that they have been able to replicate my findings.
Or are you referring to the claims from Meta, Google, and Adobe -- which failed to hold up under independent evaluation.
You are also correct that one of the meta authors wrote in a comment. However, he demonstrated a clear lack of understanding regarding what makes the bits "independent" or how to resolve the independence problem.
> Or are you referring to the claims from Meta, Google, and Adobe -- which failed to hold up under independent evaluation.
This.
> However, he demonstrated a clear lack of understanding regarding what makes the bits "independent" or how to resolve the independence problem.
Yes, I didn’t want to call it out explicitly, but this is exactly the kind of thing that would have made my undergraduate statistics professor lose patience.
Or are you referring to the claims from Meta, Google, and Adobe -- which failed to hold up under independent evaluation.
You are also correct that one of the meta authors wrote in a comment. However, he demonstrated a clear lack of understanding regarding what makes the bits "independent" or how to resolve the independence problem.