It isn't in direct contention, I'm not certain you're reading my original message correctly. I never made any claim about difficulty though you're welcome to show that claim to me, that is your insertion. I said that serious groups do it and make their methodology available. You're welcome to reproduce these things yourself to find fault, which you clearly do.
I will say I didn't intend to debate this point. People try to solve the problem It may not be satisfactory or meet your standards, and I can't do much for your there. Sorry and good luck.
Yeah I'm not going to claim you intended to say anything or not. Miscommunication happens. Sorry about that.
How I read your original message is that the I do not need to worry about contamination because the big labs already account for this and their methods are specified in the papers. I was dissatisfied by this response because I thought I had demonstrated working knowledge of these methods through my mention of contents of the training data as well as provided links to two relevant papers, one I was criticizing about how the decontamination method was far more naive than one might expect and the other was a work showing a significant amount of contamination.
I understand and sorry as well. I was being casual with my initial commenting so if I implied that it's a solved problem I didn't mean to. I know I'm replying kind of late to this, but I appreciate your response and us both stepping back to collect ourselves.
I will say I didn't intend to debate this point. People try to solve the problem It may not be satisfactory or meet your standards, and I can't do much for your there. Sorry and good luck.