I couldn't view the video, as usual, but I did read the article.
I can agree that predictive modelling is not foolproof, even that it rapidly degrades in reliability the farther forward in time projections go. If the modellers don't say so they're either taciturn, aggrandizing their craft, trying to mislead, none of those or any combination.
Still I think it foolish and irresponsible to throw down the hard-won mathematical tools we have at our disposal. The fact that mathematical models are simplified is purposeful. We could never hope to know every facet of a situation if our intellect could even contain the procedure of making use of those facets. I thusly refine to say that such models are simple by necessity. To expect future data to unyeildingly cling to the curve is to reduce the unknowable complexity of the universe into a handful of relationships designed to be wholly understandable in an afternoon, or at least in a paltry human lifetime.
With that said, mathematics seems to me one of the clearest lenses we have for examining our world. I think computer-modelling is complementary to the human mind, not in some struggle for dominance. Mathematics is indeed 'actual thinking' (as that article put it) and to disregard it is the absence of such.
Sure, someone could (and almost certainly will) misapply the SIR model for instance. That doesn't mean it's reasonable to dispense with systems of equations or predictive modelling in general. That's akin to tearing your arms off when you need to trim your fingernails.
We'd be fools to discard climate models on similar grounds.
The next two thirds I agree with about nearly wholeheartedly.
I do have a comment about this though.
"...wholly governed at the sole option of the largest faction of stakehodlers..."
Like it or lump it this is what we signed up for with proof of stake, delegated or otherwise. I personally don't like it and the cognitive dissonance is palpable. At least we can actually communicate with other stakeholders and apply social pressures to them with this network I suppose. Still the paradigm where the wealthy make the rules by way of that wealth smacks of the human problems we already see in the world at large. Even so platforms like these seem to have the potential to undermine the hegemony of still greedier social media conglomerates, which I despise, so I'll be sticking around a while yet.
The problem with models, and maths, is that just like words you can use them as you will. No physical limit exists that prevents false words from issuing from our mouths or keyboards, and none prevents bad models and the wrong equations from being used either.
This doesn't make either unusable, but requires they be used and judged with veracity and reason.
I have predicted a post-market economy, and I suspect we will first - and soon - experience a post-economy market, which globalists are about to impose. On Hive, we today have Steem as an example to follow, or a warning shot across our bow.
I suspect whales are watching token price. I suggest they base their decisions on broader societal values.
It's all I can do. Such facts as the existence of wealth that exceeds the market cap of all cryptos together should provide impetus for them to secure their stakes, because for some the price of Hive is trivial, and the annoyance caused by it's community is insufferable.