In a recent technical critique of the free energy principle (FEP) due to Aguilera-Millidge-Tschantz-Buckley, it is argued that there are a number of instances where the FEP\textemdash as conventionally written, in terms of densities over states\textemdash is uninformative about the dynamics of many physical systems, and by extension, many `things.’ In this informal comment on their critique, I highlight two points of interest where their derivations are largely correct, but where their arguments are not fatal to the FEP. I go on to conjecture that a path-based formulation of the FEP has key features which restore its explanatory power in broad physical regimes. Correspondingly, this piece takes the position that the application of a state-based formulation of the FEP is inappropriate for certain simple systems, but, that the FEP can be expected to hold regardless.