That's exactly my point. Most of the readers aren't aware of these nuances in technical terminology, so when somebody pops up and claims something that is techn

That's exactly my point. Most of the readers aren't aware of these nuances in technical terminology, so when somebody pops up and claims something that is technically true (as "plane is not unstable") but practically irrelevant (because the plane is dangerous having its own geometry alone and without some additional correction like a correctly implemented MCAS as it should have been but wasn't as the the deceptions were a higher priority because profits) they get a wrong impression that the Boeing 737 MAX and the managers making it are "less dangerous" and "less guilty" than they really are.