This headline seems factually incorrect given what the post actually claims was said. What's described isn't a 10% error rate, but rather 90% precision. It seem

This headline seems factually incorrect given what the post actually claims was said. What's described isn't a 10% error rate, but rather 90% precision. It seems like the actual thing which would be called (type I) error rate isn't discussed at all. I can only imagine that the reddit post was written with that title in bad faith/to promote fearmongering. It seems like this nuance escaped the majority of the commenters on HN as well.