I agree that it's very overhyped. If I had a magical button to change the upvotes, I'd put it in the 50-100 range.
It's an interesting research result, but my guess is that it's much more difficult to apply in production than what the PR pretends. https://xkcd.com/1217/
But instead of complaining it's much better to upvote the technical comments that explain the problems. For example, the one about the flow rate that is very small. (I was not so worry about the cost of the catalyzers, but after seeing the flow rate, the cost of catalyzer/liter/year looks high.)
There are other about what an 10^8 improvement means, and I'd like to see one about how useful is 10^8 if any small hole downstream or bad handling will introduce many more bacteria. (It's like a sunscreen with a FPS of 10^8. It's nice, you can stay for eons under the sun, but forgetting it once per year will reduce the effective number to 10^4.)
But instead of complaining it's much better to upvote the technical comments that explain the problems. For example, the one about the flow rate that is very small. (I was not so worry about the cost of the catalyzers, but after seeing the flow rate, the cost of catalyzer/liter/year looks high.)
There are other about what an 10^8 improvement means, and I'd like to see one about how useful is 10^8 if any small hole downstream or bad handling will introduce many more bacteria. (It's like a sunscreen with a FPS of 10^8. It's nice, you can stay for eons under the sun, but forgetting it once per year will reduce the effective number to 10^4.)