[atypicaluser]

> nobody wants to believe the headline/article

Look at the headline—

"'Energy independent' Uruguay runs on 100% renewables for four straight months"

and the article's very first sentence—

"Renewables alone have powered the Uruguayan economy for nearly four straight months."

versus the quote you use (the second sentence of the article)—

"In the three months to end-September 2023, the South American nation generated all of its electricity from renewable sources"

Both the headline and the first sentence are misleading. The writer did this on purpose. My guess is it's because he (Nick Hedley) likely knows that many (most?) people reading the headline won't go past that first sentence and will come away with a false sense of what really happened. Couldn't he have instead spread the good news with "Energy independent Uruguay runs its electrical grid on 100% renewables for four straight months"?

How is asking for upfront honesty being an acerbic pedant?

[forgetfreeman]

Proving OP's point in 3....2....1....

[atypicaluser]

It appears I have to explain myself better.

You've heard the phrase "read the room"? The OP added this article to HN, a site known for its detail-oriented minds (programmers, engineers, technicians, etc.) or, if you prefer another insult, "rules lawyers".

And then someone complains that these same detail-oriented folks find that some of the details in the article are lacking? And tries shaming them into giving up their detail-oriented ways?

Odd flex.

[nerdponx]

It's possible that the author treats "energy" and "electricity" as synonymous, either out of laziness or ineptitude. Seems more probable than a deliberate attempt to manipulate readers.

[regularjack]

It's a clickbaity headline. That's it.