You are absolutely correct on the meat of this. What parent is observing is mostly a more consistent PR operation. That said, some of that is too sharp. There

You are absolutely correct on the meat of this. What parent is observing is mostly a more consistent PR operation. That said, some of that is too sharp. There is some degree of "is this actually an important or interesting story." That's what the journalists/editors do. That's what the upvote button here is for. It also happens pretty extensively in HN's comments. The article itself expresses skepticism about the invention. I agree that it's not done very thoroughly, but skepticism definitely does exist in the process. In any case, it's all pretty primitive. If this invention is worth discussing, it should be discussed. This article demonstrates how lame discussing with yourself is. Where are the researchers, peers, people in the know. The subject matter here is a bad fit for factual reporting. We need subjective opinion. "Is this thing interesting?"