Don't misrepresent me. Bad as it is for forums to assume default US context on anything, it's worse for a blog to title itself "Shops can refuse to take cash ev

Don't misrepresent me. Bad as it is for forums to assume default US context on anything, it's worse for a blog to title itself "Shops can refuse to take cash even though it’s legal tender..." then lead "A [15-month old] post on Facebook with over 300 shares claims..." about a debunked old claim from the UK that wasn't apparently made in any noteworthy way in the first place. Then commenters here jump in to disagree that it doesn't work that way in the US, which is doubly irrelevant. There is an incompatibility between title clarity and HN guidelines about keeping the original article title, and it gets worse the more vague or misleading that article title was (which is not the OP's fault). In such extreme cases we should probably editorialize the title with the missing bits to remove ambiguity. I haven't been active on HN too long but I believe this discussion has been revisited many times.