doesn’t quite fit in HN’s 80 character limit though

Because the authors only read the abstracts.

Realistically, with the title you suggest nobody would have read the post.

A title is not "the most informative and complete sentence summarizing the article", it also has the goal to stimulate curiosity. I understand that we don't want misleading titles but this obsession on titles is not very helpful. I am participating in this useless conversation but I couldn't help myself. Now every single HN post has a comment on how the title is wrong..

> A title is not "the most informative and complete sentence summarizing the article", it also has the goal to stimulate curiosity.

Are you advocating clickbait?

Why did you italicize a word? Why speak with any emotion ever? Why not focus exclusively on the optimal method of transferring information from one being to another?

Why say lot word when few do trick?

In this case, I believe that using italics to convey emphasis and a bit of emotion is the optimal method of transferring information (here, apparently favoring a practice that is generally correctly viewed as a pure negative).

I disagree, he could have made his point more efficiently, therefore undercutting his complaint.

>A title is not "the most informative and complete sentence summarizing the article", it also has the goal to stimulate curiosity.

It shouldn't have to do the latter. That's clickbait. People are either organically curious about what actually happened or they are not. If they are not, they shouldn't be "stimulated" with BS. That "media/advetising" attitude is the cause behind many issues with science in society today.

Ehh. We’ve been here long enough to both know that there’s a balance. $10 says the mods won’t change the title to the suggested one, precisely because of this balance.

It’s not about clickbaiting. The whole reason the research is getting funded in the first place is to try to find the link.

>It’s not about clickbaiting. The whole reason the research is getting funded in the first place is to try to find the link.

Tieing grants to mass media popularity of research papers is an even bigger problem.

Grants are ALWAYS tiered based on biased political factors. That's why they are "grants". Someone heavily invested in finding answers is willing to give money away to achieve that end. In this case, the government is heavily invested on ideas that can stimulate their economy.

I don't even know what can be done here. Take money out of acedemia? Maybe in a post scarcity world.

We really need "saved you a click" version of hacker news. Same UI just title recommended by users

The Artifact news reader app on iOS uses this premise to provide one of the truly useful implementations of LLMs I've seen in the wild so far. You can mark a title as clickbait, and the app will use AI to generate a new title, usually one that is more usefully descriptive.

It's not perfect, sometimes the generated title is still totally clickbait and I've seen a couple instances of it being completely wrong or hallucinating a detail. But generally it's pretty neat.

The app also uses the same tech to summarize articles into a few bullets which I don't use as often but is also neat.

>It shouldn't have to do the latter. That's clickbait.

clickbait generally has an implication of incorrectly representing the content. romanticized titles aren't always clickbait, and I wouldn't say this is exactly a sensationalist tite like how others may say "We're on the first road to curing Alzheimer's disease".

>People are either organically curious about what actually happened or they are not.

it's a prisoner's dilemma. It's not necessarily zero sum, but attention is somewhat finite. And for some sites, the result isn't a more comfy high quality community. It just dies out, and that benefits no one.

It could be slightly dumbed down for non-bio people such as myself but kept the "flavor" of the article title

How about

> Researchers found aging-like cognitive effects in mice by altering the CaMKII brain protein

Only 3 more words than the original, but contains quite a bit more information about what exactly the claim is while still having a strong "hook".

The title of the study is "Decreased nitrosylation of CaMKII causes aging-associated impairments in memory and synaptic plasticity in mice" - that would have been the base of the shortened title, if the study had been submitted.

The dissemination article was chosen for submission because it was the one from the source University. (There are more around.)

Further from using clear, synthetic expressions, it contains more information than just the (available abstract of the) research article - it is where an author of the latter states that next steps are pharmacological and involving humans.

From the HN commenting guidelines:

>Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.

You're complaining that the title of TFA is not what you expect. This is certainly a tangential annoyance, and certainly not an interesting comment on the article. If you don't like the submission just flag it and move on. Do better.

Agreed. This press release is over-the-top and implies that THE one major cause for neurocognitive decline with aging has just been discovered. I doubt the article is quite so hyperbolic. The temperature of press releases for research papers in aging and dementia research needs to be cooler.