The reviews were split on the paper with different reviewers focusing on different aspects. There were some concerns about the novelty and the empirical demonstration. However, at the same time, there was also an appreciation for conceptual contributions and the depth (not breadth) of the experiments. Overall, there seems to be a significant contribution made. The authors should reconsider the decision to put most experiments (all but one) in the supplementary material, which made judging the empirical contribution of the paper difficult. But the experimental analysis is well done and shows some convincing evidence. It would be advised to increase the breadth of experiments included in the main paper.