Comment by eviks

> She’s inconsistent with her messaging, saying that “she never looked into [Geometric Unity] in any detail” but clearly saying the opposite in an older video. It honestly doesn’t interest me to micro-police how Sabine chooses to express her opinions

And yet the author has done just that, and not in a very transparent way. The second quote the author didn't provide was:

> ... looked closely enough at Weinstein's... Wolfram's ... theories of everything ... to be able to tell you that they have not convincingly solved ... > Not interested enough to look any closer ... don't want to waste my time

This is clearly not the opposite, but the same thing. "Closely enough" could hypothetically be as simple as reading the summary and skimming in a few minutes and realizing there isn't a single formula with the solution. That's not a detailed review that could require many hours (or even days?) of work

> several of our most prominent science communicators – nay, science populists – are willing to distort the truth to suit their own interests.

Indeed, a universal human trait even science can't tame!