3 ms·

It's a real shame that a bunch of people were tricked into reading an excellent piece of long-form journalism because someone singled out why it might interest

• mintplant 11y ago
  The previous title was factually incorrect: it did not match the claims of the article. Even the OP admits it was a mistake. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11382412 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11382412 The new title may not be great (as it's copied from the article, where it exists in the context of a larger series), but it's at least an improvement over one that was simply wrong.
  • zorpner 11y ago
    Are you joking? The new title would barely be an improvement over a blank line. At best, it's poorly written clickbait (who is "he"? Why do we care?), but really it doesn't even qualify as a "title" except for where it's placed on the page. It might seem like anything would be better than a title which exaggerates the claims of the article (no, the article does not prove that he was involved in the creation of TC -- it does, however, hypothesize it), but we've somehow arrived at one which if not worse, is certainly very bad in a different way. If dang wants to mangle the titles of articles into incoherency after they've already been on the front page for hours, that's clearly his prerogative, but let's not pretend that it's any kind of improvement. It would be easy to rewrite this title to both keep it in context and remove the factual inaccuracy. Instead, we get this.