The article says many things. Cherry-picking one incidental detail to use as the title is editorializing, regardless of whether it is accurate. Do you think an equally good title might be "If you’ve ever had an MRI, you’ve lain inside a big electromagnet made of superconducting wire."?
I objected to shusaku implying that this headline was exaggerating.
I don't know how to make this clearer.
> Do you think an equally good title might be "If you’ve ever had an MRI, you’ve lain inside a big electromagnet made of superconducting wire."?
Well, if you really want to get into this, even though I acknowledge it's cherry-picking:
If that fact is what the submitter cared about, and this was the only page on the internet talking about that fact... it wouldn't be a terrible idea.
The HN guidelines aren't great here. You can make your own blog post about something and link that, but it will probably get replaced to the "original" link even if the "original" link had a completely different focus.
Sometimes you have to pray that whoever wrote the original splits it up into different articles themselves. Or that they write on twitter, so you can link to a specific tweet.
Sometimes a newspaper will put three completely separate stories into the same article, and trying to link the second or third story on HN risks the title getting replaced with something utterly unrelated.
I agree that it was too narrow, but it wasn't exaggerating.