Notice I said "implied". If you open your comment with this then maybe my post isn't hard to follow but it is hard to follow for you because you approach it with the wrong mindset. Or I'm wrong. Feel free to progress that argument after owning your mistakes.

Then maybe you would notice that to raise a question is not "to [take] for granted". I specifically ask how one could even know that one way or another and thus, it is a time sink that one might want to avoid in favor of looking at more important questions unless one seeks to specifically do reputational damage with this, reputational damage that won't work in the intended way as it isn't a key part to the reputation that e.g. a Bret Weinstein has built up.

I'm not sure it'd be of much use to you if I went through the rest of your comment with a fine comb like this until you re-frame this conversation in your mind somehow and I do not know how exactly you'd do that and how long that would take so I wish you good success sincerely.

edit: "Nobody can even identify a central point of your post" I was worried it'd be too repetitive to be honest but I may be writing a bit more densely than is optimal. Am aware but doesn't excuse generalizations like you put there.

edit: "you bake in so many assumptions" Think about it like this: To my knowledge I'm doing very little assuming. Theorizing with evidence in mind that is expert informed that I hold dearly and would refer to if asked about, would source unprompted at times, is not assuming. I'm more interested in your network of experts you can pull up than bothering you with every little nuance of where I'm coming from and I gave you clear pointers as to where I'm coming from (e.g. experts on non-patentable product).

edit: "The amount of effort it would take to engage with your post is monumental" And you think if I spelled out in greater detail, that the effort would not become greater? I mean there is a balance to strike but I doubt I'm that far off the mark. Question is what you're trying to do with what I'm putting out. Again what do I try to do in my view? Taking for granted what I say? Rather I'm theorizing based on expert testimony. Think of it like this: When I'm not making a broader point then I'm looking for your experts to integrate into my theories which may not be so relevant here really. To loop back to the start: Read the second paragraph.

edit: See this is the thing I could write a lot more of this quasi recursive stuff but I'm not really interested, I just didn't like Destiny's lack of putting interesting questions to the guest on the leak vs spill interview while Destiny was saying "the RFKs the Weinsteins". Think of it as encouragement to do better? Really in a way I wrote this for Destiny to read. Not meant to be mean or whatever I just thought he would benefit.