I agree that the discussion generated from this article is not what we want on HN, but I don't think it is fair to criticize the comments as being reflexive con

I agree that the discussion generated from this article is not what we want on HN, but I don't think it is fair to criticize the comments as being reflexive contrarians when they are simply and correctly pointing out that the claims being made in the article are misleading at best. And these aren't nit-picky details about side-issues in the article - the are the core headline claims that aren't further clarified or nuanced in the article text, so guidelines to not "pick the most provocative thing ... to complain about" aren't applicable IMO - without posts correcting the article many reader would have a wildly false understanding of what actually occurred which isn't what we want either. I think the best way to increase the quality of discussion for research results is to avoid posting misleading and hype driven coverage, so the discussion can then focus on the actual research results and their implications, rather than on the poor coverage.