Unexpected evidence of a new particle at LHC
"An unexpected data signal that could change everything has particle physicists salivating."<p>I know I'm like an old man screaming into the wilderness, but I can't be the only one that's profoundly sad that even nature.com has to resort to this sort of horrible clickbait formulation for a headline.<p>Notwithstanding my aesthetic dislike of it, the thing about these headlines that makes me really upset is the fact that <i>they aren't actually telling the truth.</i><p>Not to be pedantic, but they have not observed any particle physicists with an unusual amount of saliva, presumably. There is no anecdotal or visual evidence of people drooling, nothing.<p>It seems to me this is like the most horrible way to start off an article in a publication that is <i>about the scientific method</i> for gods sakes, where precision and accuracy is sort of the whole point.<p>Would it really be so hard to have a headline like "Shocking and unexpected evidence of a new particle" or something similar that actually says or at least approximates what the news is?