I've seen plenty over the years as a professional developer of 20+ years and they are opinion pieces for the most part. I'd rather see a title along the lines of "Why you should avoid subtransactions".
The original was Dijkstra's "Go To Statement Considered Harmful". Many considered that title unnecessarily provocative, but it ended up creating a new CS/programming meme.
Now, I see "Considered Harmful" as just a concise way of alluding to that style of article, basically saying "here are the not-well-known downsides of a commonly-used thing". Many "Considered Harmful" articles do not live up to that promise, but I think this one does.
The funny thing is that Dijkstra named this article "A Case Against the Goto Statement". ACM editor didn't find that clickbaity enough and changed the title.
Not in the titles. "X is harmful" could instead be "X is unsafe", "X is often slow", "X has non-obvious corner cases", "X led us to maintenance hell", ...
"Harmful" is less information and kind of suggests an overall judgement for all cases vs "things to consider" (which was e.g. also a criticism of the original letter, that it lead to rules like "never use goto" which forced people to do bad workarounds instead of discussion on where to use it and where not)
The problem with titles like that is that they don't convey the same thing. "considered harmful" has entered the lexicon at this point, so you know what you're going to get when you see it, which is someone attempting to make a reasoned case about why some behavior that people do and consider okay is actually worse than people may suspect.
In that way, it's much more informative and less likely to have people arguing pedantic points about the title being "correct" than "is harmful" or "is often slow" or "has non-obvious corner cases" or "can create maintenance problems", which might all be items together in a "is considered harmful" article.
In other words, it's come full circle. There was the first, then there was the numerous copycats, then the backlash, and now we're all the way around to the point there it's a fairly succinct way to describe exactly the type of article people use it on and most people know what it means and what to expect when they see it.
All that's left is for people to realize it's not going anywhere and actually has some beneficial use and that there's no point in complaining about it anymore, but that might be asking too much.
Fair enough. Yet it might be difficult to summarize the tradeoffs succinctly enough for a title.
"Harmful" conveys enough information to raise awareness of a topic which might not be usually considered. Both examples show this pattern: schema-less is often considered a good thing, when it is not (in Stonebraker's and my opinion); also subtransactions are usually considered a good thing, while the OP shows they can have notable negative effects (of diverse nature) in the database.
[1] https://www.enterprisedb.com/blog/schema-later-considered-ha...