I don't think it is misleading entirely, however my first reaction was you meant smaller in storage capacity or physical size of stick this interpretation is not uncommon and can cause some confusion

When I initially read the headline I thought for a second that it meant storage capacity is getting smaller. But then I realized that that doesn't make sense and it's referring to process size.

Not sure how you could have read it that way... storage capacity is clearly not getting smaller.

I had similar thoughts as the parent, then your point came to my mind, next thing I thought was perhaps not storage capacity but maybe smaller form factor of the stick itself.

Clearly I was wrong, but confusion can happen with just saying "smaller", many meanings are there for that word.

Not intentionally misleading, of course. But I too first misinterpreted "RAM is getting smaller" as RAM that has smaller storage, which is counter to experience. But that's the size dimension I confront in everyday life, not the physical dimensions of the chip. I knew I must not be getting it, but I didn't think of the physical size until I read the article.

I also read it that way and the paper does not use that phrase. I'm not saying intentionally misleading, but clearly some people were mislead.

Misleading may have been the wrong word, though I will say I qualified it with slightly.

The changed title is much more informative.

Slightly confusing is better verbiage. I had to think for a sec (I have had cache memory on the mind, which is "smaller" than main memory).

Definitely not misleading. Possibly easy to misunderstand? It did take me a second to realize what was meant.