Second this. Don't understand why a sensationalist headline should translate as is to HN.

Because it feels like there’s a strong distaste for amateur scientists (those without degrees, not those who don’t know the scientific method) coming from both professional engineers and PhDs, anyone that has academic accreditation.

The sensationalist title appeals to the autodidact that learned how to earn 100k+ without college through programming.

As one of these non college educated $100k+ autodidacts I feel no particular attraction to the title, in fact it is faintly annoying. Yes, I do vaguely dislike people who value academic success over any other. However, as a (also self-directed) student of history I know how much real science has been done by the hobbyist and so the "tweaking the nose of the establishment" angle doesn't really work for me.

I'm an autodidact that managed to earn ~100k without formal education with programming, and then got some formal education in something else just for the fun of it. I don't like it when people use their adacemic experience (or lack of it) to bludgeon people that have backgrounds different from their own.

I think drawing those kinds of distinctions in headlines is unproductive and foolish.

Yes he used the scientific method, so by definition is a scientist. However, I'm sure the title is using the popular definition of scientist (a professional researcher) in contrast to an amateur hobbyist.

If he starts a company on this, he's a professional.

What matters is not being employed to do research when he discovered it. Not what happens later.