[sic] isn't used exclusively for spelling mistakes -- it means "thus was it written", aka. "this looks wrong, but it really isn't".

In this case, I think the intention is to make explicit that yes, they really are sending blankets.

Regardless, it's an unnecessary qualifier. Most readers here can take the leap of faith that yes, the title was written correctly, as they wait about 2 seconds for the link to load. Who cares, it's just a title, but all things being equal it should be removed.

It's pretty non-standard to use [sic] when it's not a quote.

So it's being used as a substitute for the well-worn "literally." When did everyone become so incredulous?

The [sic] is in the original title on the /. submission, it was the author to use it. I think he meant "you read right, blankets".

So in other words, on HN the title should be "Google is sending out blankets [sic] [sic] to open-source developers"

The problem with quoting text that has a [sic] is a fun one.

I researched this last time the topic came up on HN. Based on some investigation in Google Books, what books actually do when quoting text containing [sic] is use a footnote: "blah blah [sic] blah"¹

¹[sic] in original.

(And keep in mind that [sic] is not shorthand for "ha ha you're stupid" even though that's how it usually gets used on the Internet.)

Just attach another "[sic]" and you are good.

Yes, that way madness lies.

nest them: [sic[sic]]

Glad I'm not alone. Maybe there's a technical misuse of grammar in there somewhere and the poster is being pedantic? Whatever the issue, I don't see it either.

I assume it's based upon the idea of sending plague-ridden blankets. The sic being there to denote that they are actually sending blankets; it's not a metaphor. That said, it's not a great usage.

Suspect it's a joke, intended to be read as "(yes, really, blankets)"

Because they average person would assume "blankets" is a typo, because it is such a stupid gift.