The title makes it seem that "Justice Clarence Thomas" uncovered the bug - but that's not true. The bug was uncovered during a routine pre-processing operation.
He was part of a phenomenon, someone else was the observer and discoverer of the phenomenon.
The lab rat did not discover rna.
However, the title says "uncovered" not discovered, and as someone else pointed out you could parse the title as referring merely to the text string and not the person.
Those 2 things do kinda make it at least arguable. I think this title would make it through court on a technicality!
It's abundantly clear the author didn't mean what the title says only after after opening and skimming the article.
Granted, HN's title editorializing didn't help the case. But there's a difference between expecting to preserve the full information of the whole article in a singular title sentence and being annoyed that some title has just enough ambiguity in it that folks will likely click on it.