Ils tentent déjà d'étendre le corpus d'apprentissage au max, je doute qu'ils le restreignent de la moindre façon. Mais c'est vrai que les "vieux" message peuvent trés bien contenir des infos obsolètes ou ayant été invalidées entre temps.
Une dernière pour la route:
Spoiler Alert!
J'aime beaucoup la dernière phrase qui rends la chose à la fois moins et plus absurde.
EDIT: il y a une petite histoire intéressante derrière l'article original qui était une vraie étude.
Oh, there's one important detail here. The drop in the study was about 2 feet total, because the biplane and helicopter were parked.
Nobody suffered any injuries. Surprise, surprise. So it's technically true that parachutes offered no better protection for these jumpers than the backpacks.
"But, of course, that is a ludicrous result," Yeh says. "The real answer is that that trial did not show a benefit because of the types of patients who were enrolled."
If they had enrolled people at high risk for injury, that is people in flying aircraft, the results would have been quite different (not to mention unethical).