Always funny when people claim that scientific term apply to their software and then disregard any founded criticism in a non scientific way.

▲

20k 40 minutes ago | parent [-]

Its frustrating because these issues are all fixable, and some of them are just bugs, but there's a mentality in this kind of science communication that ehh it doesn't matter because its just for the public. This does a real disservice to what people are trying to actually achieve in educating the public. Its also, unsurprisingly, a lot of hard work and validation to get from visualisation-grade, to physically accurate, and its a lot easier to not do that

▲

aplavin 32 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Note that most of the points you raised are clearly not bugs – most notably, things like non-rotating black hole or colormap choice. At the very most, these can be considered missing features, but they don't affect correctness in any way.

	▲	andrecarini 3 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		You seem more interested in putting effort downplaying criticism and upholding the optics of "scientifically accurate thing from researcher in big name university" than actually putting effort on making the thing good and using the amazing feedback you got

▲

7bit 16 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't understand what you are saying.

The only criticism is to call that accurate, when it's simplified. OP ist defending the use of accurate with dumb arguments. The fix would simply be to not claim "accurate" and continue to provide a probably great visualisation (idk, haven't looked at it)