[swatcoder]

I don't see myself as "taking issue" with anything and am certainly not responsible for any sort of standards in headline writing. I agree with you that the headlines can't include every detail, which is specifically why it's important to practice deeper digging when a headline personally intrigues you.

As far as I can tell, I'm just sharing the details that the headline left out with a community who has the scientific literacy to make sense of them.

A lot of us have a hair trigger around "Can't Trust That Damn Media!" claims (myself included), so I understand why you're trying to stand up for the article here. But if you look back over what I wrote, you'll see that I wasn't criticizing it. Digging deeper is what we want to do so that we can trust the imperfect media that we know we receive.

[civilized]

I still don't agree that the headline made a stronger claim than the article, but I get where you're coming from, and sharing the details and the link to the original study is of course great and what HN is for, so let's call it good :)

[a123b456c]

These is one of the most civil exchanges I've ever read on the internet.