Rather, people that don't understand the meaning of what they are expressing.

Some examples (yeah, I'm bored)

Statement: "BSGS must improve its DB"
Fact 1: You cannot improve something below the known optimal complexity, unless you discover something of a lower complexity. However in information theory there are informational bounds that cannot be overcome, so how exactly would one improve on something that is proven to be already optimal?

Fact 2: BSGS does not use a database, it uses what is referred to as "fast memory", which is ideally a data structure that has the lowest possible access time, with seek and search complexity of O(1) (a single fundamental operation at the information implementation layer).

So any attempt to optimize something that is already as fast as possible, and beyond what the information-based paradigm allows, seems unlikely.

Fact 3: There are limiting factors in the actual physical representation resources, we are talking here about the real implementation of facts 1 & 2 above, of which the most known one is RAM (random address memory). RAM allows the usage of the information theory principle of "fast memory".

So, any attempt to optimize on Fact 3 is limited by the technological constraints available. If we analyze the requirements of solving a specific problem, we are going to be quickly slapped in the face by the realization that one cannot simply add up many magnitudes of RAM to some computer system (or even a super-computer system) due to a lack of tehcnological availabality.

Statement: "Kangaroo must improve its computing power to be more efficient."

Fact 1: Kangaroo is an algorithm, it does not have "computing power", which is something in the realm of practical concrete implementation.

Fact 2: Efficiency is also something that correlates to a practical implementation.

Fact 3: We can always add up more computing power. In contrast to "we cannot always add up more and more RAM for our fast-memory-based algorithm".

So, these facts make this statement pretty blake. Why? Because, we can always add up the computing power, it is not a "must improve", it is rather "this is something that already can be done and profit from in our implementation". In contrast, can we arbitrarily add up more computing power to BSGS? No, because the fast-memory real-life implementation (RAM) is only fast because it's physically connected to a singular computing system, not many. Can we arbitrarily add up more fast-memory to BSGS? No, because we have techology limitations. Can we fit more data in the same fast-memory RAM in BSGS? Well, sure we can, buddy, but the information theory bounds will again hit you very hard in the face, because now you need some form of processing.

These problems are not something that you can simply cheat on and call it revolutionary or miraculous. These are well-defined problems rooted in the information field itself, before any kind of other talk on opinions.