Unfortunately, in the process of sensationalizing the topic, the article strongly suggests that the discovery is breaking news. While a recent revision to the original research was posted on arXiv two weeks ago, the original was published in Nature in September 2013 and the corresponding movie was posted on YouTube 9 months ago as well.

tl;dr: This is old news; temper your expectations.

You logic is fascinating there.

If the reader knows this is old news, then they wouldn't have expectations to be tempered, because it's old news to them.

But if the reader didn't know about it, and finds the news exciting, then it's news to them, why temper their expectations?

There's no logical scenario under which someone would find this event notable, but be bummed out because it happened 9 months ago.

Maybe some people don't like following ambiguously-titled links only to discover old news masquerading as something new. Novel idea and totally ridiculous, I know. How could I have been so silly?

Furthermore, my logic is perfectly valid. Scientific research is time-sensitive by nature. If someone were to post an article hailing the discovery of Neptune, while interesting to someone who has been wholly ignorant of Neptune their entire life, it warrants a caveat noting that it's an outdated discovery. And yet under your logic, you would reply: "There's no logical scenario under which someone would find this event notable, but be bummed out because it happened 168 years ago."

It was new to me. Thanks for posting.