What do you think why they phrased it the way they did? Do you think most people reading the headline will think "ah, yes, the people who currently own the Atari brand but are completely detached from what the company that once held the name got famous for are still investing in blockchain tech despite its recent decline" or do you think they will think "oh wow, the company Atari that once was a household name in the 1980s and later went on to publish numerous games I like is still investing in blockchain tech despite its recent decline"? These two different takeaways have very different implications (random speculative investor vs former giant turned underdog).
To put it another way, "elderly gentleman shares his opinion on invading Iran" and "former US secretary of defense shares his opinion on invading Iran" are two ways to break the same story and would likely both be factually correct but convey very different things about the merit of the opinion to the same audience (not taking the reader's personal biases into account).
It's not nerd sniping. That's not even what nerd sniping means. It's also explicitly not ignoring the headline, it's ignoring the article.
To put it another way, "elderly gentleman shares his opinion on invading Iran" and "former US secretary of defense shares his opinion on invading Iran" are two ways to break the same story and would likely both be factually correct but convey very different things about the merit of the opinion to the same audience (not taking the reader's personal biases into account).
It's not nerd sniping. That's not even what nerd sniping means. It's also explicitly not ignoring the headline, it's ignoring the article.