Respect the thoroughness but the email-then-blog-post approach feels like your optimizing for engagement over resolution.

The 18x flops discrepancy is damning and takes less than 30 seconds with a calculator to verify. That kinda raises the question of how this got through any review process at all.

Maybe the paper is bad, but the critic needs to find a better way to present critisism.

Use paragraphs.

Don't lead with "The paper is awful and makes no sense whatsoever." At that point you have already lost the goodwill and attention of the author.

It reminds me of a time early in my career where I was tasked with analysing a financial model that a 3rd party company had created. At some point in the meeting, I said 'look, it's just terrible'. Crickets. I learned a valuable lesson about how not to talk other peoples' work - work that they have spent countless hours on and are probably proud of - even if it's not very good. The way I spoke about their model was not conducive to helping create a better model, it was just an excuse for me to fling shit.

This blog post could have just been an email.