There's 3 tweets in that thread:

> It is disappointing, but not really unexpected, to see this take on the epidemic simulation code release: https://lockdownsceptics.org/code-review-of-fergusons-model/ If we accept it at face value, we have a retired software engineer making the case that non-determinism in a simulation shows incompetence. I am all \

> for deterministic-everything, but issues with random seeds and parallel floating point reductions are extremely widespread, and a great deal of science gets done with non-deterministic simulations. Heck, professional software engineering struggles mightily with just making \

> completely reproducable builds. I take no position on the mechanics of the simulation or the conclusions drawn from the runs, but implicitly encouraging scientists to keep their code secret if it isn't "perfect" is damaging.

This is also this comment by Carmack

https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1254872370260652033

"it turned out that it fared a lot better going through the gauntlet of code analysis tools I hit it with than a lot of more modern code. There is something to be said for straightforward C code. Bugs were found and fixed, but generally in paths that weren't enabled or hit."