At the bottom of this page you will find a Guidelines page with an "In comments" section:
" Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
You were both not entertaining and added nothing to the discussion.
As much as I agree with you, people are excited for the potential of an extraordinary result, and in my view this article's tone is completely out of place for a publication with the historic weight and impact of Nature.
Research and replication are crucial components of the scientific process. Context switching too frequently can indeed lead to wasted time, as researchers may not have the opportunity to delve deeply into a particular topic and build upon existing knowledge. Replication is essential for validating findings and ensuring the reliability of scientific claims.
While some interesting discussions may occur on Twitter, it's important not to dismiss academia entirely. Academic institutions provide an environment conducive to rigorous research, peer review, and collaboration, which are fundamental aspects of advancing scientific knowledge.