> And why has it gotten such interest/points? * I have seen incredible incompetency in my field. I have no illusions that it is better in other fields (plus pe

> And why has it gotten such interest/points? * I have seen incredible incompetency in my field. I have no illusions that it is better in other fields (plus personal stories from others about their fields). * Replication crisis. Generally speaking, it threw a massive shade on a lot of fields. * Generally speaking, the "trust the science" message during COVID did a massive damage. * Science news influencers. Dark energy is one of common themes of Sabine Hossenfelder and generally rather negative. * Dark energy is supposed make up ~70% of everything in universe. Yet basically nothing is know about it. That's a hard sell. And yes, every point has a massive asterisk/that's a massive simplification/incorrect. That doesn't help overall perception. Perception is everything on social media. Basically, if there was a theme, it would be "WTF are they doing?" Or if you want a more poetic version "Modern science has been a voyage into the unknown, with a lesson in humility waiting at every stop." There is something seductive about an idea that instead of using existing stuff, scientists just made something new and shiny and were wrong. Happens in our field every day. Your comment only reinforces this. This is a peer-reviewed paper in a reputable journal (Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society). Yet you are asserting a significant failures to use correct statistical practices. If you are correct, that is just another notch to the "WTF are they doing?" category.