[kbenson]

Yeah, I'm totally aware of how hard it is to accurately assess and relate info from a technical paper without experience in the industry, which is why I try to make sure I express how little confidence I have in how I'm relating that info, given I very rarely have time to actually dive deep into a paper when looking something up like this.

In some ways what you describe is a very common larger problem. When you want to promote something (whether it be because of financial or more altruistic reasons), its hard (possibly impossible) to walk the fine line for all people between accurately relaying information and convincing people of something less factual (such as "this is cool and we should look into it more"), namely because different audiences' relative experience in the area will mean they won't recognize where that line is in many cases.

For example, at exactly what point does a website or description for some open source project move from purely descriptive explanations of what it can do to promotion about why it's cool and why you should try it? People with different experience in the domain it's in will have difference experiences ready that info. The neophyte and the layman will interpret the statements differently.