It depends on what "engaging with the public" means. I think what the parent to your reply was driving at was that there are a lot of pop-articles that are cons

It depends on what "engaging with the public" means. I think what the parent to your reply was driving at was that there are a lot of pop-articles that are constantly trying to have the most far-out, crazy idea about our universe. Often the articles aren't "This is what happened" but instead have a form like, "This weird thing might be true but we aren't even close to knowing for sure, yet." They are going for the "Whoa!" reaction. One of the comments a user left on the article's page used the phrase "theoretical one-upmanship," which I think kinda fits. In short, I contest that these articles, though this one is WAY better than most since it is not written for the public at large, aren't actually engaging the public in science. (I feel like your username is actually really relevant too, but I can't quite put my finger on the reason. I hope that my post is cromulent enough to embiggen our discourse on the subject, though.)