The qualitative assessment of the plant's design is outside the scope of what I'm commenting on. I'm referring to the journalistic bait-and-switch which hides a very relevant piece of information (that contradicts the implied assertion of the title) on page two of a banner-encrusted site.
In the context of current events, the title of the link suggests some kind of spectacular negligence.
At the point where the scientist says the design flaws were addressed, [his resignation due to design flaws] is no longer a story that adds anything relevant or noteworthy to the discussion. It's merely a historical fact disconnected from current events.
If the title of the article had followed the content and been focused on the expert sharing their knowledge and discussing possible problems with the design I would have appreciated it much more.
In the context of current events, the title of the link suggests some kind of spectacular negligence.
At the point where the scientist says the design flaws were addressed, [his resignation due to design flaws] is no longer a story that adds anything relevant or noteworthy to the discussion. It's merely a historical fact disconnected from current events.
If the title of the article had followed the content and been focused on the expert sharing their knowledge and discussing possible problems with the design I would have appreciated it much more.
[edit: clarify what is no longer newsworthy]