I know, and I’m glad of it, but look: tech companies DO fuck around. A lot. There are lots of ways to pressure individuals into cutting corners, and to pressure auditors and controllers to look the other way. The regulators might catch them, but there’s a very real possibility that a tech company fucks up REAL bad before they get shut down. They have a very long history of it.

And who’s going to make sure these tech companies actually run a nuclear power plant responsibly? Have they ever run anything responsibly?

The missing words are “shitty” and “fucking”, btw. I feel like we’re getting crap posts like this from bots that aren’t willing to tailor their posts for places where naughty words are allowed. Or reposts of bots’ output. Either way, I’m tired of it.

Even though the artificially-saturated color was known at the time among planetary scientists—and the images were released with captions explaining it—that distinction had become lost over time

Ah, well, releasing images where they’re both light gray circles will certainly help dispel this myth. If there’s one thing the public really latches onto, it’s when factual science makes things more boring.

The problem here, linguistically, is that any phrase which means this will take on the meaning of falsehood automatically, over time. It’s the same way that any respectable word that means “has a disability” eventually comes to be an insult and then a slur.

If you want to say something like that, the word “putative” is still pretty unfettered by negative connotations, but only because few people use it. If it were in common use, it would follow the same path as “so-called”. A more reliable approach in the long-term is to say what you mean using more words instead of fewer:

She could trust him more than any of her friends; although she wasn’t sure those people were really her friends, it remained to be seen.

It’s actually the length and awkwardness of the sentence structure that makes it resistant to misinterpretation.