Nope,
you would still argue ( no doubt about it ) because you wont never admit to be wrong

Do you want to increase the speed from 0.1c up to 1.c ?
Do you think it is a smart idea ?
Are the flaws so obviuos ?

No it is not a smart idea and the flaws are obvious only for you, not for me
There are at least a couple of good reasons

a)
Did you notice that " Horribly slow " stands for " 3\4 the age of universe " ?

If some one claims
" it is impossible to go on foot, from New York to los Angeles , in one day "
and some one else argue
" On foot maybe not, but cycling it could be possible, it is ten time faster, why dont you give it a try ? "

What would you think of him ?

b)
You give for granted that a further increase of the speed or in general of the technological level is, in any case , a benefit
Are you so sure ?

You must match the exploration time and the maximum amount of time at disposal for the exploration

given by

The age of their planet - The evolution time from the scratch up to the technological level

The higher the technological level the higher the evolution time ,the shorter the time at disposal for organizing the exploration

Experience demostrate that it relativly easy to make progress at the beginning but afterward the learning curve get steep and steep

It may be not worth while waiting for the highest technological level


The only real advantage is to increase the number of probes
Mr Bjork run an other simulation with 200 probes and 8 sub probes
The result are quoted in the article