[NickRandom]

Normally it is best to email Dan to ask something like this but based on the comments in the x2944 post many considered it click-bait (either the article or the headline).

Considering that nobody vouched for it - maybe it is, maybe it isn't (I don't have domain knowledge sufficient to judge if it is or isn't).

HTH.

[taubek]

Oh, this is way to unimportant to bother Dan. I was just curious how come that it has happened.

[NickRandom]

Did none of the comments in the original submission not show why (at least some) thought it to be click-baity at the time of you posting this 'Ask HN'? That's not snark btw am just confused about your reasons/motivations were in posting this Ask HN.

Do you feel it an important enough breakthrough that it needs/deserves HN's input and or perusal? If so, again, email DanG and ask for it to be put into the 'second chance pool'.

Again, HTH but bear in mind that my words are just random guesses from some random internet forum user and are worth exactly double what you paid for 'em!

[Edit to Update:] I took a quick look at the original submission and although as said I'm not a domain expert but any news release that links back to

Data availability

The data that support the plots within this paper and other findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

And

Code availability

The code that generated the plots within this paper and other findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Makes it tough to validate the claims made especially when the original paper is behind a paywall. Maybe an internet archive link in the comments section would help so that others can read the full paper rather than just the abstract?