Probably worthy of submission to the Darwin Awards.
>Don't need to read the articles - just the headlines…
Which seldom match the story 'inside', but hey, headlines are what people discuss at the watercooler thinking they have some knowledge of something….
You see it here a lot too, people commenting on headlines posted whilst never actually viewing the 'story' or verifying the sauce.
>Why a headline is on a research board boggles the mind?
If just a headline, possibly lot to do with 'managing' notables and the narrative that appears to come from here, and to aggregators - and many times the notable title is misrepresented for the same purposes.
>If just a headline, possibly lot to do with 'managing' notables and the narrative that appears to come from here, and to aggregators - and many times the notable title is misrepresented for the same purposes.
PERFECT EXAMPLE HERE:
>>>14529448 Epstein Court Documents UNSEALED, CALL TO DIG.
>>>14529448 Epstein Court Documents UNSEALED, CALL TO DIG.
Same BS pushed yesterday as 'Maxwell court document' - it isn't, it is from a civil case:
Latham v. The 1953 Trust (1:20-cv-07102)
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18196132/latham-v-the-1953-trust/