4 ms·

OP takes the one line in the article that can be perceived as a personal attack and uses it as the post title. Why not use a title that actually represents the

OP takes the one line in the article that can be perceived as a personal attack and uses it as the post title. Why not use a title that actually represents the primary argument in the article? That is, the WeWork CEO is saying that some time in the office is paramount for collaboration and efficiency. The question is just how much time is optimal. 3-days a week or 5-days a week.

sokoloff 5y ago
> OP takes the one line in the article that can be perceived as a personal attack and uses it as the post title. OP literally took the headline from the WSJ article, consistent with the "Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." guidance. Your ire is more properly directed at the WSJ headline author. * - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- fairity 5y ago
  The WSJ article title, at the time of my comment, was "Wework CEO says workers who want back into the office are most engaged". You'll see evidence of the original WSJ article title in the slug of the URL: https://www.wsj.com/articles/wework-ceo-says-workers-who-want-back-into-the-office-are-the-most-engaged-11620837018 https://www.wsj.com/articles/wework-ceo-says-workers-who-wan... For me, at least, the WSJ article title update came after the HN post.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    I fetched the article at 11:32 AM EDT (per my browser history) and the title and headline were as posted for me. In any case, it seems unlikely that the OP would conjure up a title that happened to match what the WSJ later changed their title to match character-for-character, so I'd wager that OP copied from WSJ rather than vice-versa or for them to be entirely independently derived.
- chad_strategic 5y ago
  Just be clear I never changed the headline, it was directly from the WSJ. (nor did I have any intent to confuse) WSJ article title was the epitome of clickbait.

sokoloff 5y ago

> OP takes the one line in the article that can be perceived as a personal attack and uses it as the post title. OP literally took the headline from the WSJ article, consistent with the "Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." guidance. Your ire is more properly directed at the WSJ headline author. * - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

fairity 5y ago
The WSJ article title, at the time of my comment, was "Wework CEO says workers who want back into the office are most engaged". You'll see evidence of the original WSJ article title in the slug of the URL: https://www.wsj.com/articles/wework-ceo-says-workers-who-want-back-into-the-office-are-the-most-engaged-11620837018 https://www.wsj.com/articles/wework-ceo-says-workers-who-wan... For me, at least, the WSJ article title update came after the HN post.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  I fetched the article at 11:32 AM EDT (per my browser history) and the title and headline were as posted for me. In any case, it seems unlikely that the OP would conjure up a title that happened to match what the WSJ later changed their title to match character-for-character, so I'd wager that OP copied from WSJ rather than vice-versa or for them to be entirely independently derived.
chad_strategic 5y ago
Just be clear I never changed the headline, it was directly from the WSJ. (nor did I have any intent to confuse) WSJ article title was the epitome of clickbait.