As someone who reads the comments more than the articles, I always appreciate when this kind of clarification is in the comments. It's one of the best parts of HN.

I appreciate it too

Honestly, me too, to the point where I open the comments in tabs before visiting the articles. It may be biased, but seeing what the HN hivemind has to say about the topic is usually as valuable, and often more valuable, than the linked article itself.

There are also situations like this one where, while I find the headline interesting, I don't care enough to read through the whole link - so I'll check the comments for any significant additions or corrections or clarifications, and sometimes read the interesting discussions that occur, but won't even click through to the main link.

It might come down to a question of number of perspectives - the linked article is usually by a single person/group (or worse, a news org poorly interpreting the results of a group), while the HN comment section will be filled with a variety of people, often with domain specific knowledge and experience.

All that to say, HN is an interesting community, and I don't think there's a "wrong" way to interact with/be part of it (as long as you're being respectful etc.).

The point is that the headline is ambiguous.

RNA is a compound, and Uracil is also a compound. Thus you cannot tell from just the words "RNA compound" whether they mean a compound that is RNA or a compound that is part of RNA.

Most of us are laymen to the subject. Please people, feel free to continue regurgitating concise and understandable information.

Fittingly enough, mother birds regurgitate their otherwise indigestible food so that their young can digest it.

Yeah, even the title here (now) is "RNA compound" not RNA.

It was when I posted my comment.