“Nguyen says he realized none of it was ‘consistent with my image of how a good-faith scientist engages with his audience’." Coming from a family of scientists, I'm mostly impressed by how Weinstein seems uninterested in channeling his ideas towards where they could have the greatest impact. Instead, he consorts with a variety of public figures known best for right-wing political views. “But for now, it seems the only relevant question is: Are we entertained?” Neither this Vice article, nor I, are capable of finding a way to rescue any insights that Weinstein might have had. (Not every scientific revolution springs fully-formed from the brow of Zeus; the heliocentric model predicted planets' positions *worse* than the earlier models, until Newton explicated the math of gravity and ellipses.) Might there be a pony underneath the manure? Absent any plausible way to judge or advance scientific understanding, Vice might've gone into the question of why this effort is anything other than lipstick on alt-right pigs to lend “stature” to plutocratic & anti-egalitarian politics

Does a good job of trying to explain what some experts don't seem to be able to understand by curating there on-the-record statements.

At best, it can be said that the author is no fan of Weinstein. This bias shines through in the first half of the piece, where the author attaches Weinstein to the likes of Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson and uses other tactics in an attempt to preemptively disqualify Weinstein's statements on what he calls "Geometric Unity”. I would have preferred to see the author outline the claims and what other scientists are saying in regards to each particular claim.