Got some really badly written reviews this year. One of them especially stood out, the reviewer mansplained how our paper is the result of the most basic result in our field (stuff I show to high-school students in pop-science lectures), and doesn't understand why we need to spend so much time developing our tools, which they also confused with other existing tools. The reviewer marked him/her-self as the most knowledgable of all of our reviewers! Real Dunning-Kruger in action. It's actually so bad that I'm hopeful our response will flip it upside-down (or rather downside-up?): Imagine the shock of finding that a seemingly trivial result is actually untrue, but that with novel tools a more nuanced result can be developed!