> On the other hand, he says, researchers at Argonne and elsewhere are already trying to replicate the experiment. “People here are taking it seriously and trying to grow this stuff.”
The submitted title has been heavily editorialized. That’s the only relevant part of the article, and that’s far from implying that there’s a concerted effort at Argonne.
> The submitted title has been heavily editorialized. That’s the only relevant part of the article, and that’s far from implying that there’s a concerted effort at Argonne.
What's wrong with the submitted title (other than being very narrow)? It just says they're attempting to replicate, which they are.
If anything I'd say that "taking it seriously" is stronger language, and the submitted title is slightly underselling it.
The article says many things. Cherry-picking one incidental detail to use as the title is editorializing, regardless of whether it is accurate. Do you think an equally good title might be "If you’ve ever had an MRI, you’ve lain inside a big electromagnet made of superconducting wire."?
I objected to shusaku implying that this headline was exaggerating.
I don't know how to make this clearer.
> Do you think an equally good title might be "If you’ve ever had an MRI, you’ve lain inside a big electromagnet made of superconducting wire."?
Well, if you really want to get into this, even though I acknowledge it's cherry-picking:
If that fact is what the submitter cared about, and this was the only page on the internet talking about that fact... it wouldn't be a terrible idea.
The HN guidelines aren't great here. You can make your own blog post about something and link that, but it will probably get replaced to the "original" link even if the "original" link had a completely different focus.
Sometimes you have to pray that whoever wrote the original splits it up into different articles themselves. Or that they write on twitter, so you can link to a specific tweet.
Sometimes a newspaper will put three completely separate stories into the same article, and trying to link the second or third story on HN risks the title getting replaced with something utterly unrelated.
Is the original title better? "A spectacular superconductor claim is making news. Here’s why experts are doubtful." Standard nothing title, "a thing happened." I zeroed in on the pithy part of the article, which is SOP on HN. The subtitle is just "skepticism abounds" which we already know. What some, including me, didn't know is that legit USG labs are studying it, and that's what makes it news.
The submitted title has been heavily editorialized. That’s the only relevant part of the article, and that’s far from implying that there’s a concerted effort at Argonne.