The problem you run into is that laypeople operate with modified Aristotelian physics. They might "know" that the speed of light is a speed limit, and they might "know" that quantum mechanics says you can't measure anything.

They also believe that objects keep moving after you push them because they retain a memory of your push, and when that force runs out the objects come to rest*

You are not, will not, cannot teach them how to do a meaningful modern calculation in a single conversation**. Hell, Feynman's lectures were a failure: they didn't serve the audience he was supposed to be teaching (first year students).

So are you talking to students? Or is this a cocktail conversation? Because those are two very different settings.

*&**) These points are extensively documented in the PER literature. SciComm is really important and really useful, but it's not the same as effective pedagogy.

I was disabused of such pretty quick when I realized I had to repeat the same exercise over multiple sessions to replace in the students' heads Aristotelian physics with Newton's 3rd law XD.

At the same time, I learnt to design a better force diagram than displayed in the assigned textbooks (many of which I suspect were influenced by Feynman)..

Which is kinda my point. That the status quo kinda suck doesn't mean the notation or examples can't be improved upon. It's heartening that we're entering a post-textbook age..

I wasnt so interested in scicomm up there because I suspect that the "slow" uptake of Yang's ideas had more to do with bad pedagogy

Better force diagrams, you say? Any literature (or textbook) references for that? How about some notes?