It's not the content of the link but the title. nazri1 chose the title "File descriptor table isn't ..." based on the first line of the response. But that know

It's not the content of the link but the title. nazri1 chose the title "File descriptor table isn't ..." based on the first line of the response. But that knowledge is introductory material, rather like saying that "function calls use a stack" or "ASCII is a character encoding" or "Javascript expressions use operator precedence". (If I had a list of links I've flagged I could give some real examples.) The guidelines suggest 'please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait'. The original title is indeed misleading. But so is this title. Did you find the article interesting because you thought the file descriptor table in Linux is global? I originally went to the page, went to the where the question was asked, saw that the person didn't known even the basics, so understood why the page was structured as a tutorial type response. I figured that the HN submitter was equally inexperienced, so gave a poor title on the assumption that most HN readers would also be surprised to know that the file descriptor table in Unix not global. Which makes no sense, and isn't the type of title I think is relevant, so the guidelines suggest to flag and move on. And yes, submitters sometimes do exactly that. Yes, I could have researched it even further to suggest that "how the unix process model works" might be a better title. But how much responsibility is there on me to infer that submitter's intent is different than that suggested by the title? If it helps any, I have unflagged the link. BTW, I also flag linkbait titles without even reading the content to see if it's actually interesting or relevant to HN.