[titzer]

One could argue that people don't "hear" anything but the electrical signals transmitted from their ears to their brain. If an ultrasonic signal causes someone to perceive a noise--any noise, even if waveform-translated from the original, but in a predictable fashion, isn't it "hearing"? E.g. if we set up a chime that went "bing bong" every time the cat went through the cat door, after a while wouldn't it be appropriate to ask your roommate, "Did you hear the cat come in?"

[jakubp]

If that's the case, I could write an article "Company X developed technology that enables people to see individual atoms and hear the explosions on the other side of the Earth."

[aaron695]

> hear the explosions on the other side of the Earth

It is quite hard to enable them to 'hear' where on earth it is, not sure how you could hear it properly. (Language is not hearing although hearing is involved)

What's an example where it's not clickbait with a sense that's been 'enabled'?

For this article I'd consider it not clickbait if all the 'information' from ultrasonic is transferred to the ear real time or close to.

[titzer]

If it was realtime, then sure, as it's kind of implied in that phrasing. What are our senses other than machines that detect phenomenon and turn it into electrical signals for realtime processing for the brain? Do people with cochlear implants not hear?