3 ms·

Sapiens according to the first sentence (i.e. “modern humans”) in the CNN article. (Although, this is what most people assume anyway when seeing the word “human

Sapiens according to the first sentence (i.e. “modern humans”) in the CNN article. (Although, this is what most people assume anyway when seeing the word “humans”.) Interestingly and headline-related, the species isn’t that mysterious as the headline suggests because the second sentence of the article identifies thems as the “Homo naledi”. Insert typical rant about article titles for X reason.

mcv 3y ago
Homo Naledi is a fairly recent discovery, though. The headline is undoubtedly designed to amp this up. As written, it could be about a species of homo we'd never heard of, or even about aliens. It's just Homo Naledi again. A better title would have been "Homo Naledi buried their dead and carved symbols 100,000 years before Homo Sapiens"
- bluepod4 3y ago
  1. I was being facetious. I don’t care about the use of the word “mysterious” in the title. I just wanted to insert my joke about people who are nitpicky about article titles in cases when it honestly doesn’t matter such as this one. (Maybe facetious isn’t the right word because, again, this isn’t a serious issue. The article title is fine as-is. It’s not clickbaity in the slightest and the lede isn’t buried or insert usual explanation for nitpickiness) 2. Your suggested title is only better depending on the target audience (and if you don’t capitalize “naledi” or “sapiens” after “Homo”, ha more nitpickiness). It’s CNN, not Scientific American. Better is subjective. TLDR: On HN, there’s too much pedantic circle-jerking going on related to fixing article titles. We get it. We’re all “smart”. (For more context, I’ve seen so many complaints about article titles over the last few weeks. It’s ridiculous. GP’s comment that asked “which humans?” was literally the first and only comment on this post when I viewed it earlier. That’s annoying. The literal second comment was mine which basically says “stop complaining, the title is explained in the first 2 sentences of the article”.)

mcv 3y ago

Homo Naledi is a fairly recent discovery, though. The headline is undoubtedly designed to amp this up. As written, it could be about a species of homo we'd never heard of, or even about aliens. It's just Homo Naledi again. A better title would have been "Homo Naledi buried their dead and carved symbols 100,000 years before Homo Sapiens"

bluepod4 3y ago
1. I was being facetious. I don’t care about the use of the word “mysterious” in the title. I just wanted to insert my joke about people who are nitpicky about article titles in cases when it honestly doesn’t matter such as this one. (Maybe facetious isn’t the right word because, again, this isn’t a serious issue. The article title is fine as-is. It’s not clickbaity in the slightest and the lede isn’t buried or insert usual explanation for nitpickiness) 2. Your suggested title is only better depending on the target audience (and if you don’t capitalize “naledi” or “sapiens” after “Homo”, ha more nitpickiness). It’s CNN, not Scientific American. Better is subjective. TLDR: On HN, there’s too much pedantic circle-jerking going on related to fixing article titles. We get it. We’re all “smart”. (For more context, I’ve seen so many complaints about article titles over the last few weeks. It’s ridiculous. GP’s comment that asked “which humans?” was literally the first and only comment on this post when I viewed it earlier. That’s annoying. The literal second comment was mine which basically says “stop complaining, the title is explained in the first 2 sentences of the article”.)