My experience of those utterance is that it’s purely phatic mimicry: they lack genuine intuitive surprise, it’s just marking a very odd shift in direction. The problem isn’t the lack of path, is that the rhetorical follow-up to those leaps are usually relevant results, so they stream-of-token ends up rapidly over-playing its own conviction. That’s why it’s necessary (and often ineffective) to tell them to validate their findings thoroughly: too much of their training is “That’s odd” followed by “Eureka!” and not “Nevermind…”

After a few basic operations (retrospective look at the flow of recent reviews, product discussions) I would expect this to act like a senior member of the team, while 4.6 was good, but far more likely to be a foot-gun.

It could be that they have a provider in Lebanon that was bombed but I’ve never heard of a cartographer with local dependencies like that.

Maybe it‘s a you thing?

> Is it not factual that trains have brake pads which wear down and cause carcenogenic micro dust?

Not a point I have contested, but yet another suggestion without any sense of scale, and so far you have refused to address that aspect of five or six replies on the topic. Maybe that’s why you are inviting so much hostility?

I’m doubtful he paid for ads to make his disdain better known. So I suspect someone else is trying to make that happen beyond what Vance can with his speeches.

The current US administration is definitely not helping, but every ad I see on the Reddit main feed is a blatant attack on the relation, from brand new subreddits, pointing at magazines I’ve never heard about before. I’ve been reporting them, but it keeps coming, from constantly different sources, different names, subreddits, but always the same vague but incredible incredibly provocative titles

I suspect that some social-media-addled senior US officials are being fed the same crap because their reactions to non-existent European reaction are not grounded in reality.

Someone who repeats, jokingly or not, an argument that was placed somewhere deniable. One lab, looking at a small study, published a correction saying their estimates were wrong because they didn’t realize how their gloves accounted for it. Do you know who knew about that? Every intern in every lab ever. This was a minor correction that should never has reached anyone except the 10 readers of their original report.

But, strangely, that story got a wide coverage in the press: the usual “science” publication, the trade press, even widespread media. Why? Because it was presented as a “They are making things up about micro-plastics” piece, and those can go really far. And that kind of coverage doesn’t happen by accident.

So no, I don’t think you did that deliberately. But I know you read about it recently; I know you didn’t check what that original story was that triggered the coverage; I know you found that quaint—and I have no reason to think you deliberately tried to spread misinformation. But, you did. Because the people who want to sow doubt know what they are doing.

You are welcome to edit your comment to clarify.