Whenever I see these articles on HN, I'm now primed into thinking "it means rats brains" and I'm usually right. I truly appreciate the research in this and other fields (e.g. Alzheimer), but clickbait titles like those give false hopes to readers who may have friends or relatives suffering from real conditions. Please make it clear that we're talking about _rats_ and it may take years for those researches to be available to us _human beings_.

We’ve got so many enhancements for rat brains available, maybe they are running the place at this point.

I have much empathy for your false hopes, given my own memory loss over the years (I am 69). That being said, I do not consider it clickbait to say "Scientists find ways to boost memory in aging brains". Anyone familiar with work in the field understands that if it is genuinely about "human" brains or even "hominid" brains, then that would be specified. To talk generically about "memory in aging brains" is not IMO misleading.

I feel much of your criticism rests with HN - the length of titles is quite restrictive and the initial post (which in this case specified "restoring memory in older rats") usually gets buried with more popular dominating comments. Don't get me wrong, I think the weighting of comments in HN is one of its best features. Other comment systems providing for the "pinning" of the initial comment by the OP - not sure if this is possible on HN?