I am sorry, but I really do not like this style of naming and self-advertising. Is this common in ML? "LION is a complex array of mechanisms, like the engine i

I am sorry, but I really do not like this style of naming and self-advertising. Is this common in ML? "LION is a complex array of mechanisms, like the engine in a car, but the user (driver) does not need to know the inner workings of the engine in order to realize its tremendous benefits. LION’s adoption will create a prairie fire of innovation which will reach most businesses in the next decades." 1. Why is it called LION? There is no reference to a lion anywhere in the introduction. Just because the (real) title contains the letters to form lion is (in my opinion) not good enough (machine Learning plus Intelligent OptimizatioN). I hoped we were done with this style 5 years ago. 2. Even before trying to attempt to explain exactely what LION is, we have this car engine analogy. Why not explaining what it is so that I do understang what you are talking about. This just feels like an attempt to obscure complexity. And in (some bad papers) this is a sign that the authors did not fully grasp the matter and can hence not summarize it. 3. Why this bold claim that this will change innovation and business? If the book holds what it promises it will do that on its own. To be fair, I haven't read the book but will probably do it. And it might be awesome. But these three things raise red flags for me. I read a lot of papers during my PhD and these are three indicators for bad papers. And the authors of those papers were PhD students will oversell there stuff anyways. But this is a book. Please do not do that... [EDIT] Typo