New phenomenon breaks inbound TCP policing

Re:New phenomenon breaks inbound TCP policing by uudecode on Tuesday June 07, 2016 @10:42AM (#11854798)

Is it not OK to criticize Microsoft on HN? This title was changed to remove any mention of Windows. Just curious.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:New phenomenon breaks inbound TCP policing by e40 on Tuesday June 07, 2016 @10:46AM (#11854837)

I think it's that they (HN mods) like to use the original title.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:New phenomenon breaks inbound TCP policing by MertsA on Tuesday June 07, 2016 @10:55AM (#11854904)

Especially when the submitted title contains relevant context for the article. Can't be having that.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:New phenomenon breaks inbound TCP policing by mikeash on Tuesday June 07, 2016 @11:21AM (#11855080)

The submitted title was just plain wrong.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:New phenomenon breaks inbound TCP policing by MertsA on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @08:49AM (#11861858)

After looking at what the original title was, I agree. In this case it needed to be changed but just dropping the part about UDP would have been fine. In most cases though it honestly seems like when HN titles are changed it's changed for the worst. It looks like I'm not the only one who feels that way either.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4102013

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:New phenomenon breaks inbound TCP policing by mikeash on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @09:29AM (#11862115)

Go ahead and fight it in those cases, but this is not at all good example.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:New phenomenon breaks inbound TCP policing by colanderman on Tuesday June 07, 2016 @04:24PM (#11857492)

The title was incorrect before (suggested UDP was used; it's not). dang just reverted to the article's actual title.

[ Parent | on HN ]