7 ms·

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.

by amf12 5y ago

35fbe7d3d5b9 5y ago
Without Thomas taking an action - speaking - the bug would remain undiscovered. I think that counts.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  Can affirm. I also often discover bugs by speaking.
  - jldugger 5y ago
    The trick is to not speak for seven years first tho.
- D13Fd 5y ago
  I disagree. I thought the article's title was misleading. It was Justice Thomas's name that uncovered the bug, if anything. Justice Thomas himself had nothing to do with it other than his name.
- conradev 5y ago
  That to me is him triggering the bug, not discovering it
  - pohl 5y ago
    This thread reminds me of a relevant comic: http://synd.imgsrv.uclick.com/comics/nq/2015/nq150718.gif http://synd.imgsrv.uclick.com/comics/nq/2015/nq150718.gif
- Brian_K_White 5y ago
  He caused the bug to be exposed to another, he did not discover it, as he did not know there was a bug or that he had any sort of relation with it. 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!
  - amf12 5y ago
    More accurate title could have been: "Justice Clarence Thomas speaking after 7 years uncovered..".
smrtinsert 5y ago
There is no way a single line will ever continue the full meaning of any article anywhere to everyone. I think we need to move on from this expectation. In this case, it's abundantly clear that the author didn't really believe that Justice Thomas found the bug.
- micah94 5y ago
  I will admit wondering whether Justice Thomas was actually looking at Perl code was part of the reason why I clicked on this.
- robluxus 5y ago
  This just seems like defending clickbait. 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.
rectang 5y ago
Yeah, from my perspective this article is deceptive clickbait. I was expecting something along the lines of 19th century US president James Garfield's proof of the Pythagorean Theorem. I wouldn't have clicked if the title had accurately conveyed the article's contents to me.

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.

by amf12 5y ago

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.

35fbe7d3d5b9 5y ago

Without Thomas taking an action - speaking - the bug would remain undiscovered. I think that counts.

ethbr0 5y ago
Can affirm. I also often discover bugs by speaking.
- jldugger 5y ago
  The trick is to not speak for seven years first tho.
D13Fd 5y ago
I disagree. I thought the article's title was misleading. It was Justice Thomas's name that uncovered the bug, if anything. Justice Thomas himself had nothing to do with it other than his name.
conradev 5y ago
That to me is him triggering the bug, not discovering it
- pohl 5y ago
  This thread reminds me of a relevant comic: http://synd.imgsrv.uclick.com/comics/nq/2015/nq150718.gif http://synd.imgsrv.uclick.com/comics/nq/2015/nq150718.gif
Brian_K_White 5y ago
He caused the bug to be exposed to another, he did not discover it, as he did not know there was a bug or that he had any sort of relation with it. 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!
- amf12 5y ago
  More accurate title could have been: "Justice Clarence Thomas speaking after 7 years uncovered..".

smrtinsert 5y ago

There is no way a single line will ever continue the full meaning of any article anywhere to everyone. I think we need to move on from this expectation. In this case, it's abundantly clear that the author didn't really believe that Justice Thomas found the bug.

micah94 5y ago
I will admit wondering whether Justice Thomas was actually looking at Perl code was part of the reason why I clicked on this.
robluxus 5y ago
This just seems like defending clickbait. 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.

rectang 5y ago

Yeah, from my perspective this article is deceptive clickbait. I was expecting something along the lines of 19th century US president James Garfield's proof of the Pythagorean Theorem. I wouldn't have clicked if the title had accurately conveyed the article's contents to me.