Of course it does. The bare minimum to be "safe" is much different than strict internal standards. All rules are not created equally, and breaking different rules should be treated differently. This is why the purposeful misdirection in the headline matters - it is not true or accurate.
Because it does not provide it's readers with an understanding of what happened, purposefully, to create a more sensationalist headline to generate more clicks and likely more revenue through advertising and subscriptions.
> Because outspoken HN readers assumed this was something to do with government?
First, this is needlessly insulting. Second, it is common knowledge that emissions standards are government regulations (because they are), so titling an article about a car manufacturer about failing emissions standards points _almost everyone_ in the wrong direction.
Were you in the newsroom? How do you know the purpose was to "create a more sensationalist headline" (which wasn't sensationalist).
>First, this is needlessly insulting. Second, it is common knowledge that emissions standards are government regulations (because they are), so titling an article about a car manufacturer about failing emissions standards points _almost everyone_ in the wrong direction.
As insulting as assuming the motivations of an author? I don't think so. Emissions standards are also builder specs. What came first: builder specs, or government specs?
>titling an article about a car manufacturer about failing emissions standards points _almost everyone_ in the wrong direction.
I disagree. The title was factually accurate. The current title is arguably inaccurate now, as I doubt Nissan even used the word 'internal' in their 'admission'.
