Space

Too true. I don't know how many articles like this I've read over the last few years. The title suggests with weasel-words that an Earth-like paradise planet capable to supporting carbon/water based life has been found.

But then when you dig into the details there's always one or more catches that complicate things. Things like:

• It's a super Earth several times the mass of our Earth (as is the case here).
• It doesn't have tectonic activity and/or a magnetosphere.
• There are actually zero signs of water.
• It's barely inside the habitable zone, so it'll either be very hot or very cold.
• The atmosphere turns out to be very toxic to life as we know it.
• The star it orbits is highly volatile.
• The star it orbits is a red dwarf (which while isn't necessarily a deal-breaker it does present other challenges).
• Its parent star system is very volatile and print to heavy colliding of other hazards.

I've wondered why the habitable world spin is picked up so much. That makes a lot of sense that it's being promoted to help get funding for post-graduate studies.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect

You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.