> The common defect in the critiques [2], [6], and [14] is that, instead of engaging with the original quaternionic 3-sphere model presented in my papers [1], [7]– [11] using Geometric Algebra, they insist on criticizing entirely unrelated flat space models based on matrices and vector “algebra.” This logical fallacy by itself renders the critiques invalid. Nevertheless, in this paper I have addressed every claim made in the critique [6] and the critiques it relies on, and demonstrated, point by point, that none of the claims made in the critiques are correct. I have demonstrated that the claims made in the critique [6] are neither proven nor justified. In particular, I have demonstrated that, contrary to its claims, critique [6] has not found any mistakes in my paper [7], or in my other related papers, either in the analytical model for the singlet correlations or in its event-by-event numerical simulations. Moreover, I have brought out a large number of mistakes and incorrect statements from the critique [6] and the critiques it relies on. Some of these mistakes are surprisingly elementary.

For example, are you using a Builder? Would you use the Builder pattern if the language had named variables in arguments?

My favorite reference on the topic is Peter Norvig's "Design Patterns in Dynamic Languages" (1996!) https://www.norvig.com/design-patterns/

Not saying it’s easy to figure out how to accomplish change in a free and fair way. But the status quo is pretty clearly a horrifying outcome.

> > The Times has no issue with individuals creating similar word games that do not infringe The Times’s “Wordle” trademarks or copyrighted gameplay.

Can you really copyright “gameplay”?

This seems like pointless bullying by the Times, who is probably just upset they haven’t got a positive ROI on their acquisition of a free game.