All this discussion seems to be doing is derailing the comment threads. Almost half the comments here are not about the article itself but your opinions on the words used in the title.
This is also a funny way to not assume anything:
> (I assumed that “gus_leonel” wasn’t the author
> Well no, but I’d rather not assume anything
I don’t see the benefit of this discussion existing in the first place, let alone continuing it, so I’m going to stop here.
Most won't know it's posted, or won't see until after it no longer matters. "Don't editorialize" is the simplest and surest way to respect the original author.
"Don't editorialize titles unless the original title is very nondescript or clickbait-y" is not a controversial HN policy.
> Most won't know it's posted, or won't see until after it no longer matters.
They very clearly did considering they changed the article title. At this point you literally are complaining for complaining sake.
This is not a productive use of any of our time.
Falling back on ad hominems and irrelevant information that, frankly, nobody would ever care to know. Sometimes, you don’t have to say what’s on your mind. I would have hoped the rest of this thread would have shown you that, but clearly that didn’t happen.
Great use of all our time. At least you won’t see this comment to continue your insults of me. Something that, considering you seem to know the guidelines well, is frowned upon here.
Well, no, but I'd rather not assume anything: just let the author pick the title.
(I assumed that "gus_leonel" wasn't the author, since John Arundel has his own HN account under his regular "bitfield" username, but they do post a lot from bitfieldconsulting, so idk).