Why are you bending backwards this much to make results appear better than they are?

The article might be a but sensationalistic, rigour could be better and the data might have flukes... But your comment is overcorrecting and nitpicking framed as analysis.

I get the same feeling in several of your posts recently.

Same with persisting to showcase the pelican-on-a-bicycle as a useful sample when it's obviously trained on and for, for those very posts. It stopped being cute last year.

Are you being paid or do you have shares? You'd get the attention whichever angle you put here. These corporates don't need you defending them. Humanity might need you however.