It was generated using AI as a criticism of a comment that they didn't understand, and suggesting that AI would be more coherent, before giving an example. But

It was generated using AI as a criticism of a comment that they didn't understand, and suggesting that AI would be more coherent, before giving an example. But the comment that they were criticizing was perfectly reasonable if the facts it was based on are correct (that the apparent packet loss was periodic, not random). There is another possible explanation (the interference itself was periodic), but their position and explanation is not at all unreasonable, never mind incoherent. All that said, the more interesting comment is the most recent (at time of writing), from a passenger on another flight landing at the same airport, on the same day, suggesting that their plane suffered from a similar issue. Your comment, however, is lazy and lacks substance. "I stopped reading because..." is a cancer on discourse. Read, then criticize, or STFU. (I confess I have been guilty of your approach in the past).