Outrage is from Karens who wanted something new to be outraged about.
Honestly, it irks me a bit when people repeat the mantra "think for yourself" without thinking. To "think for yourself" about a topic requires a foundation of knowledge -- hopefully based on facts -- about that topic.
When I read an article about the trouble drilling holes through certain types of rocks, no amount of "thinking for myself" will help me discern the accuracy of the article. When I read an article about the impact of Russian military culture on political decision making, no amount of "thinking" will help me determine how biased it is. When I see a tweet about a star with an image, no amount of "thinking" will help me determine if it's real or not.
I simply lack the expertise to "think" about these fields. I guess I could fool myself into believing that with a few hours of browsing around, I could make an informed assessment. But I stopped thinking that way as I grew older (and hopefully at least a tiny bit wiser).
"Why are there no diffraction spikes? When do diffraction spikes occur?"
"Why is this showing surface detail vastly more detailed than any previous image which only showed vague shapes of even the closest stars (other than Sol)? How much better can the Webb image stars compared to Hubble?"
"Why does this have so little noise compared to the recent Jupiter image?"
"Why is the border not perfectly round?"
"Why does part of the surface look shinier than the rest? Is there some odd effect going on with false-color or color grading?"
"What's with the odd features on the surface? Why don't they look anything like our sun's sunspots?"
And of course the most important thing...
"After looking at it for 30 seconds, and really trying to categorize it, what does my brain tell me it looks like?"
