"Improved upper bound on density of integer sets containing no subset a,a+b,a+2b"
If there was an actual bombshell that would be the headline!
It wouldn't be "Surprise Computer Science Proof Stuns Mathematicians" it would be "Scientist solves Fermat's Last Theorem" or something
It's great headlines aren't using the overly technical description (that honestly doesn't help much either) but it is a bit depressing the reason for doing so is "nobody clicks those" not "it could be made clearer to the average person" so we end up with things that are so vague you have no clue what it could actually be about yet is written to ensure it should be interesting enough for you to click. After that they don't really care what you get out of it, you've loaded another article and ads instead of leaving. This article actually bucks the trends a bit by being decent enough with what content is in the body at least.
those headlines and similar clickbait techniques are annoying, but they’re seen as a necessary evil by plenty of “good quality” content creators and editors
this is especially evident on youtube, where it appears as if you literally cannot gain mass success without surprising facial expressions in your video thumbnails
if you think I’m exaggerating, open Youtube in a private tab and see how many of the recommended videos don’t have someone pulling an unusual facial expression in them
plenty of these videos are of perfectly good quality, but in order to succeed they have to follow a shadowy pattern
Eminently practical approach, but we can hope for a better world where this isn't necessary...
Hey, you know what, while we're assigning WORK to other HN members, why don't we just ask that people submitting science news do a little digging and find a non-clickbait headline? Why is that unacceptable, while your assertion is acceptable?