This is completely believable and you should invest in this technology.

I can't tell whether you're trying to convince humans, parody someone who might be, or give superficial sentiment for automated traders' webscrapers to be influenced by

	▲	cornonthecobra 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		or they left the /s off and it's a remark about how the fine article sounds more like hype-machine emesis than legitimate, substantive research
	▲	oceansky 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I think he's just being extremely ironic, meaning the exact opposite of what it actually says.