> We ran those queries several times and took an average.

The whole thing is bizarre. They could at least have drawn 100 samples and evaluated the model's response. But no, they ran it a few times and hoped that the slight randomness in sampling magically resulted in a balanced assessment of accuracy and contrariness, at some point in time for which we don't even know how much training data there was, nor if that data accurately reflects the opinions of that time. But hey, we've got a graph, so it must be true.

How can people be so stupid?

> cheap bioethanol ... [has] yet to bring about the breakthroughs we prophesied.

Oh.