Jacob C.

@Steve L The ELI5 idiom is typically a *self*-deprecating clarification request. It came off oddly to me to see that invoked by an answerer rather than an asker, even though I knew the expression. It seems to me more prudent not to use it when it hasn't already been invoked by an asker (especially since plenty of people remain unfamiliar with it). Moreover, no general explanation of theme was requested or likely needed. (Perhaps it was needed in the comment that the copied reply was replying to, but sometimes it really doesn't make sense to copy a whole other comment.) In the current context, the elaborate assurances of the closing paragraph also came off as unnecessary and potentially patronizing. (Perhaps in writing the earlier reply you were responding to someone railing against the theme.) All that was called for here was the 98A paragraph, nothing more.

@R.J. Smith Yes, it gets into Ralph's head and he's ready to start the Poloponies War over it. This inspired me to rewatch a clip from the episode on YouTube, and it's the first time I've actually been amused by interruption by the inane ad warning "Five words you pronounce wrong before your brain starts shutting down..." The usually annoying ad could imaginably have been algorithmically prompted, based on appearance of the word "pronunce" in the video's comments, or it could have just been coincidental, as I've encountered the ad randomly before.

@Andrew I deliberately solved it correctly for the acrosses, contenting myself that the downs should be read along zigzagging, lightning-bolt-like paths. It might have been a nice completion effect for them to have placed the letter that's first in the across answer in the bottom-left corner of each square and the letter that's second in the across answer in the top-right corner of each square. Then it would appear in correct order for both acrosses and downs simultaneously.

@Barry Ancona There's arguably even less support for the notion that it's a joke, as "Isn't it funny how A.I. can write cliche-ridden poetry?" would be a rather strangely dull attempt at a joke.

@J-J Cote As with some other word coinage attributions to Shakespeare, I was, off the bat, skeptical of how certain this is. Often people are relying on the fact that Shakespeare's works are the earliest known *surviving* attestations for words, but that's not ironclad proof that there were not earlier (now lost or not yet noted) uses. That's not to deny Shakespeare had a great influence on the English language, but it's his many turns of phrase that we still use that are on far firmer ground, in terms of originality. Spellings, especially, were changing a great deal in Shakespeare's own time. There are many spelling changes even from earlier Shakespeare quartos/folios to the later ones. But in the case, in Folio I of "The Tragedie of Macbeth" it was not even "Weird Sisters" — it was "weyward Sisters". <a href="https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/doc/Mac_F1/page/2/index.html" target="_blank">https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/doc/Mac_F1/page/2/index.html</a> And the OED has a yet earlier citation for "weird": 1577 The prophesie of three women supposing to be the weird sisters or feiries. R. Holinshed, Hist. Scotl. 243/2 (margin) in Chronicles vol. I

@Byron A possible problem is that some old entries that draw on '90s-era trivia might add extra difficulty by now. This effect may hold even for some people who might expect to experience the reverse effect (due to having been bigger consumers of contemporary pop culture back then).

@Tim P Problem is, then the next person has to pass on the earworm. Best make sure the last person to hear it is someone on their way out of town, the solution hit upon in one of the chapters of the classic kids' novel "Homer Price".

Typo correction: I meant to write "But in this case..." ... Extending this comment as emu food.

@Hayden Nice? Quite, I'd say. Sanremo, not as much.

@Margaret I think you need to read the rest of my comment, particularly the part where I said "Obviously, the shaded letters referred to by the clue include the rest of the name as well." The clue appeared to *reference* the shaded squares to describe what 4 Across solves to. If the clue is interpreted as cluing the entirety of the shaded squares, that's very weirdly self-referential. It'd be like cluing 66 Across as "Japanese city spelled out by the squares of 66 Across." Again, as I said before, a clue of "With the rest of the shaded letters, iconic sci-fi setting" would have worked fine.

@Jacqui J In both the app and on the website, I still see 4 Across inter-highlighted only with 90 Across ("Inits. for this puzzle's shaded squares"/USS).

@Andrew Because it was intended and sufficiently served as playful misdirection. Many have spoken of a "coinage of the [insert recent, short period]" in a lexical sense. Few, aside from numismatic professionals or enthusiasts, would describe the Sacagawea dollar in that manner (as opposed to simply calling it "a coin of the early 2000s").