There was nothing but statement of fact in the original link, taking everything that everyone for saying at face value. Do we just assume that anything from Fox News is biased here on HackerNews due to its source?

I think if you look, the bias is clear there. The ending is a clear conservative dog whistle as far as I'm concerned. I see no reason that the mention of a possible presidential bid and a statement against Trump is relevant to this otherwise.

Yet the piece parent links is far more detailed and informative than Fox's short summary. It would be the better HN link.

It's unfortunate they wrote balanced as I don't think it's about balance or bias. Just amount of information content.

The MNN story is totally mute on the cost, which is relevant.

I don't think the concept is a bad idea, but I would like to see a representative trial first before assuming it is a consequence-free benefit.

That's how sound walls along freeways came along. Nobody considered that the materials were not at all sound-absorbent and therefore would just displace noise a bit farther away from the freeway.

They both mention the cost and life.

Fully agree that some representative trials would be sensible first. Far too much of what we do turns out to have unintended consequences.

Maybe they should explore possible glare from a white, coated, road surface. It'll be a poor scheme if it turns out to lead to an increase in auto accidents or pedestrians being run over because they're getting lost in heat haze.