That means first of all that they're somewhat more familiar with high school physics than "remotely familiar," and secondly that they also probably shouldn't to

That means first of all that they're somewhat more familiar with high school physics than "remotely familiar," and secondly that they also probably shouldn't tolerate factual inaccuracies such as "[new instruments] have now allowed astronomers to follow one of these stars, called S2, as it passed very close to the black hole during May 2018." Is that an inelegantly-placed prepositional phrase (since only the observation took place in May 2018 and not the passing), or do people in the field refer to these things in the present tense as a sort of shorthand? (I'm not one of them so I don't know.) There are signs it's meant for a broader audience, e.g. "one of these stars, called S2" instead of simply "star S2" (since everybody's already familiar with it). Or how about "The new measurements clearly reveal an effect called gravitational redshift. Light from the star is stretched to longer wavelengths by the very strong gravitational field of the black hole." How often should experienced astrophysicists be subjected to the tedium of this explanation of red-shift? Once every 5 articles? I would say: Since it's a fact from their own field, they should be reminded of it less often than they get reminded of what was happening on Earth when this stellar event actually happened. Because if they're truly specialists, that means they probably know jack squat about archaeology/anthropology or anything besides astronomy/astrophysics, and might even appreciate the latter reminder.