Agree.

Also, cognitive decline has been studied intensively enough that if there were a single mechanism responsible for most human instances of it, the science around that single mechanism would've been settled by now. Instead what we seems to have is a disease where toxins, chronic infections by bacteria, viruses and fungi, cardiovascular health, genetic variability (e.g., apoE4) and metabolic-lifestyle factors like insulin resistance and lack of sufficient exercise are all important.

But HN likes to upvote these announcements written by PR departments at universities.

Nah, surely we found a room temperature super conductor and solved one of the most major aspects of aging all in 1 week!

It's possible people vote up articles like these because they want skeptical readers to analyze them.

(I don't do that, and I don't know anyone else's HN voting habits, but it seems at least plausible.)

I'm more interested to hear what discoveries have lead to meaningful results. There are a lot of news articles on potential medical breakthroughs but I have no idea how medicine is actually advancing.

I've been reading gesture recognition papers that claim to be real time and I've yet to see one I can reproduce in real time or reproduce at all.

The necessary hoops to jump when writing a scientific study seem to be very different from the hoops to advance a field.

There is no world in which HN is not a “waste” of time.

This notion that HN must only be for “serious” conversations about serious submissions is a wholesale misunderstanding of what HN is.

I see it as progress, not a cure. Is there anything wrong with reporting progress?