I think that any paper that argues something is impossible is fundamentally flawed, particularly when there are examples of it being possible.
Also, what's the point of telling others you believe what they are doing is impossible, specially after the results we are seeing even at the free-tier, open-to-the-public services?
"
The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e. an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers. For any such consistent formal system, there will always be statements about natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system.
The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that the system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.
"
Gödel wrote his teorem to test David Hilbert’s endeavor, Logic and the Foundation of Mathematics[0], to unify mathematics. Gödel proved that it is impossible to do.
Also, what's the point of telling others you believe what they are doing is impossible, specially after the results we are seeing even at the free-tier, open-to-the-public services?