again the interpertation sounds like like spin or assumption.
more often than not some here expect that everything is done in language that matches some kind of highfalutin communications requirement
example: there is a harvard professor, he was about the youngest to make tenure went to some highbrow technical highschool in new york city and has a proof to a previously unsolved under his belt, i discovered this guy not to long ago when looking over a lecture at mit that credited the solution to a problem to someone "at that liberal arts college on massachusetts avenue" aka harvard, so thats how i figured out who he was.
as any rate getting to the point, looked up some of his lectures on line in number theory, very advanced super lean on explaination to the point that even the notation was used very loosly, Had i not known that he was a genious i might have thought the work was sloppy, bottom line is that he doesn't have to give a crap if you understand him or not when your his student, matter of fact, he probably likes it that way since all his studends are expected to be able to figure it out anyway
after all nothing like a type "o" to get people thinking.
the upshot is that the vast majority of what is said doesn't fool the pros, you information is good, but i dispute the majority of the negative interpertations, either at their core or in regards to their relevance
good day
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
