The title has been changed to the title the original author used, which seems appropriate. Titles have a context (which the author considered when they chose i

The title has been changed to the title the original author used, which seems appropriate. Titles have a context (which the author considered when they chose it). That context doesn't exist when it sits enumerated on the HN front page, invalidating the canonical title argument. For instance when the author of this piece shared this, they did so under their own twitter account (coupling it with a name), and the supporting commentary "I gave this talk at a CA traffic ticket defense attorney seminar. Comments appreciated.". If these two elements didn't exist, and it was just tossed onto some pile of titles, it would be ignored. I write a blog about software development, particularly financial and database related matters. I have vague titles like "Dealing with Variance" that makes total sense in the context of my blog and its readership, but is completely meaningless title outside of it. While I do think there has been good transparency about title changes (a mod usually comments), the whole "what the original author intended" argument is misled.