You're leaving the part out where he says "and write some fucking code." He wants people to show him he's wrong with analysis/simulation instead of tell him he's wrong with their opinions, which is entirely valid.
Expert opinions certainly beat naive code.
This is not to say that code cannot be valuable, but the justification for this code does not even begin to touch upon real macroeconomic issues.
One of the possible concerns of a basic income is rampant inflation - it's clear that the author has not even considered this.
Peer-reviewed economic models would have to justify their model assumptions in a more robust way, including empirical data where appropriate. I'm not an expert but I expect this is a good place to start: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/economic-modelling/
All models use simplified assumptions and questionably appropriate techniques, I agree - that is practically the definition of 'model'. However, a useful model should justify those assumptions and techniques using current research-level knowledge, and/or show how the model applies successfully to reality.
I see this model to be as useful to economic discussion as saying "the world is flat, plus or minus 5 degrees". It ignores all current work in the field.