6 ms·
You changed the title to something that is simply not true. Please don't do that. "Air accident investigators said they had not ruled out a drone but had no ev
by TillE 11y ago
You changed the title to something that is simply not true. Please don't do that.
"Air accident investigators said they had not ruled out a drone but had no evidence to support the suggestion."
- harryh 11y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
- 13of40 11y ago"Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait." (From the submission guidelines.)
- zamalek 11y agoIt's really a pity when an otherwise neutral piece sees one-sided discussion that polarizes to the opinions of the person submitting the link. I've seen some extremely presumptuous discussions because of this, where 80% of the comments dig into only the [incorrect] title and not the article/facts. Customized titles should be the exception and not the rule. In truth, HN should really hit the page and grab the <title> and, if it's changed, flag it so that a moderator can vet it.
- dang 11y agoThanks for pointing this out. The submitted title was "BA plane not actually hit by drone after all". Submitters: please use the original title except when it is misleading or linkbait. This is in the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- makomk 11y agoThe submitted title seems rather more accurate, given that there's no evidence the drone in question existed and there never was. The BBC's title and reporting suffers from the usual unwillingness to admit they were wrong.
- Zigurd 11y agoObjectively, the probability of it having been an actual drone strike are sub-microscopic. You wouldn't object to a headline like "Man in woods didn't see Yeti after all." The odds are similar.