The numbers cited and used in calculations are supported by citations. The purpose of this paper is not to test a hypothesis, or to gather new data, but to think about existing data and new directions of research. This is spelled out in the paper's abstract, which is kind of summary of the whole paper, useful to get a very quick idea about the paper's purpose -- expanded further in the paper's introduction and re-visited again in the paper's conclusion.
Thank you for explaining what an abstract is... The fact that those number come from a citation doesn't make them true.
This is a badly written paper that a decent researcher wouldn't have written (and I know that the author has many papers, I am speaking about this one) and a decent reviewer would have rejected. A paragraph about Elon Musk? Guesstimates on information rates?
As a blog post would have been okay-ish, as a scientific paper is quite bad.
There are no measurements here, I can guess the weight of an apple based on some prior (which my brain stores as some continuous distribution, not bits), but I am not measuring it.
It's incredibly tiring that bad science is sold as good science only because it comes from some fancy university. This paper is crap and should be treated as such.
