Sounds like the rule where if the headline ends in a question mark, the answer to the question is No.

Oh, you mean Cunningham's law.

I see what you did there...

I wonder why no one seems to have published an article titled "Is Betteridge's Law of Headlines True?"

edit: who else? https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2013/03/18/was-betteridge-rig...

A good rule that could be refined by applying it only to topics that the general public cares about. A breakthrough in analytic number theory or international accounting standards is probably genuine, one in AI or battery technology probably not.

Unless it's in Math. If a Math breakthrough makes it to the popular media then it's most likely a very big breakthrough.

Why is that? I suppose complex maths is harder for the science journalist to understand, and doesn’t get as many clicks, so if they are reporting on it it’s because it’s substantial?

Any rule that reduces the posterior of a breakthrough is generally going to be an improvement. Unless your definition of "breakthrough" is extremely generous.