They've since changed #2 to the point of walking the whole thing back.

This shows the letter: https://twitter.com/pipcosper/status/1182799512621977600

Not only did they reject the article, they sat on for ages. Great work Nature.

But the comments that got turned to grey are things that people can and did say.

This is analogous to the debate about when to break long functions into shorter ones. The simplicity argument usually doesn't consider the increased complexity of all the interactions between the new, shorter functions. If you omit that, you get a misleading picture, or as Linus puts it, a false simplicity.

Is there an easy way to read this?