So his two points are:
>Wolfram's model is better than the Imperial College simulation
I have no clue what Wolfram modeled. The Imperial College simulation looked like crap, so I wouldn't put it past the guy behind Mathematica to come up with something better in two days. However, I still don't trust Wolfram much. German and Swiss scientists released a simulation that looked solid and I'd have a lot more faith in their work.
>Finance is in shambles
Yes, finance is a shitty field, but when you compare the stuff they publish to proprietary systems, you're implying they are dealing with problems that can be tackled with proper science. I have my doubts. He's mentioning Renaissance for having far more sophisticated models than any university, yet the Renaissance people seem to claim they use the most basic and non-fancy techniques for their job. Simons' explanation for their success is "just find patterns in data lol"... meh, I think the whole industry is too sketchy to take it as an example for science falling behind.
