Are there any problems with this particular story? I found it to be mostly collating current thought about BCI and its applications.
I just don't feel that publications that put out enough bunk to get a conspiracy/pseudoscience rating should be rewarded with clicks even if one particular story may be sound (I don't have the time to fact check every thing it claims). IMO, any crumbs of actual truth they may put out just gives them undeserved legitimacy for the other bunk.
Obviously, YMMV.
Seeing that they only get clicks on actually true/well researched articles might change their mind.
Are there any problems with this particular story? I found it to be mostly collating current thought about BCI and its applications.
I just don't feel that publications that put out enough bunk to get a conspiracy/pseudoscience rating should be rewarded with clicks even if one particular story may be sound (I don't have the time to fact check every thing it claims). IMO, any crumbs of actual truth they may put out just gives them undeserved legitimacy for the other bunk.
Obviously, YMMV.
Seeing that they only get clicks on actually true/well researched articles might change their mind.