Well, pretty much all headlines here are click-bait. In the common case, the scope the article actually applies to, is blown out of proportion. I think its beca

Well, pretty much all headlines here are click-bait. In the common case, the scope the article actually applies to, is blown out of proportion. I think its because we're hardwired to ignore one-offs. "One person used a curved metallic bowl to cause a fire" sounds kinda boring. Another one thats on the front page - "How to read and understand a scientific paper: a guide for non-scientists" is actually "A serious of unverified tips that might help you become somewhat familiar with a limited subset of scientific papers whose jargon you should already familiar with" Scientific papers are written for other scientists, no "guide" is going to allow a layperson, who is completely unfamilar with the topic, in understanding the paper. If you are not a physicist you simply can't grok the theory of the alternating-gradient synchotron. You might become kinda-sorta-familiar in a wikipedia sense by looking up each term and reading the paper but you're never going to be able to field questions on the topic (usually possible only for someone who understands a topic).