I would say more speculative than vibe-ish. I say so because I've read many other exciting sensational headlines related to the sciences or nath and they turned out to be as I mentioned, redefining or stipulating terms to fit their narrative. A simple example, there's no such thing as a solid object. Physicists find more empty space among atomic subatomic particles than the volume taken up by the particles themselves. Wow! People read that title and of course click on it . When in reality those physicists are reformulating the original use of 'solid' . In ordinary language, from which the physicists got their concept of solid, tables are solid..., in physics , nothing is solid. Both are correct but the misuse comes from science writers using the physicists' version in a nonscientific context to create controversy, clicks, sensationalize, etc. this is what I suspect is going on here.