"Just", because the blog post sounds like it was doing fundamental basic research on longevity based on brand new ideas ("I was chatting with some friends about how I thought I had an idea for how to make dogs live longer."), instead of commercializing on existing research. It wasn't my intention to be dismissive.

I think your comment is fine. One could read it and be like “wow! Are they running a lab too?” and once you find out this person role is really connecting the money to this preexisting science, the term “just” is warranted. It’s not negative, it’s a recognition that they aren’t running their own lab as well.

Very early on in the article she says she 'did not discover the science behind the company'.

So ipsum is correct?

Not right in using 'just'. It is not a gotcha as she admits it herself.

I believe you about your intent, but intent doesn't communicate itself in internet comments, so the burden is on the commenter to disambiguate. In this context the word "just" is very much a trope of shallow dismissals ("why don't you just", "can't you just", "this is just", etc.), so the ambiguity went against you.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...