True, but the submission guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) say: "[...] please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize". Adding the programming language to the title is editorializing (or more probably fishing for the Rust camp's upvotes). The submitter is free to comment on their own submission and editorialize there.
Nothing about this title is false or even disputable. It's a Rust-based version control system.
Please take your language hate elsewhere, it's not constructive here. If you have a problem with Rust or its community, wait for an appropriate thread to editorialize here rather than invoking the rules in a way that's contrary to their common interpretation or enforcement, as if you've got some sort of authority.
Parent poster raised the possibility that OP's motivation for editorializing in the title was to make it more attractive to a set of readers. How exactly does that count as "hate"?
HN generally discourages titles that differ from the source materiel. OP added the bit about Rust. You're deflecting.
> Parent poster raised the possibility that OP's motivation for editorializing in the title was to make it more attractive to a set of readers. How exactly does that count as "hate" these days?
Why is additional factual data "editorializing"? Why is it a problem to say, "Oh and hey this is written in Rust?" What's actually immoral about engaging people capable of reading Rust to learn more about revision control?
This is Hacker News. Everything here is for the edification of folks interesting in software, its venues and applications. That seems to be good for posts to do. Folks who can read Rust will have extra reason to check out a worthy project, and perhaps look at how it works. Disseminating that kind of knowledge is precisely the kind of positive outcome sites like this look to drive.
I think it's "hate" because the only people mad about mentioning Rust so far have directly cited the idea that it's unfair to engage the Rust community on this site. It's difficult to even pick through the layers of this statement, it's so densely networked with bizarre assumptions. Thus, in my opinion it's language hate because the complaint is not, "This story would not be relevant without mentioning Rust," the complaint is, "This story's title shouldn't mention an interesting and important point." It very much seems like the goal is to suppress mentioning Rust, not to enforce a bizarre and unconventional reading of the rules.
> OP added the bit about Rust. You're deflecting.
I'm not deflecting that at all. I'm challenging the assertion that it's a rules violation or "editorializing". I've been here quite awhile and engaged with the mods a whole bunch, and I've never once seen "salient technical info" be marked as "editorializing." The Pijul folks make no secret of their use of Rust, and they're happy to talk about why they chosen it and why they like it.
If I had the authority to change the title, I would have done it. As it is, I only claim the "authority" to point out that the submitted title should be changed in accordance with the guidelines; something that others often do as well.
> a bizarre and unconventional reading of the rules.
The rule as quoted is "[...] please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize". I read that as an actual rule ("use the original title") with a qualification (the clickbait part) and an additional statement about editorializing that only reinforces the rule. We can drop that last part if you like. In that case, the rule is (still) "use the original title". How am I reading this in a bizarre and unconventional way?
> Folks who can read Rust will have extra reason to check out a worthy project, and perhaps look at how it works.
Yes. And if OP had added the bit about category theory, then folks interested in category theory would have extra reason to check Pijul out. If OP had added that Pijul is on a Darcs-like concept of an algebra of patches, folks interested in Darcs would have extra reason to check it out, etc.
Picking and choosing what additional -- even factual -- info to add or not to add to the original title is edito^H^H^H^Hexactly what the guidelines say that a submitter should not do.
> The Pijul folks make no secret of their use of Rust, and they're happy to talk about why they chosen it and why they like it.
A page about that would make a great HN submission. The page submitted here is not that page; as I pointed out, it never mentions Rust anywhere.
> If I had the authority to change the title, I would have done it. As it is, I only claim the "authority" to point out that the submitted title should be changed in accordance with the guidelines; something that others often do as well.
Yes, it's clear you would.
> How am I reading this in a bizarre and unconventional way?
Because you're suggesting that mentioning the technology used for the project is "editorialization" or "clickbait."
Quite frankly, everything you've done here has been done not with the intent of actually fixing a problem, but rather of escalating the argument about how mentioning Rust is unfair (although unfair to what? It's unclear) or a rules violation (which if it is, it is at such a mild edge of that spectrum that it's an extremely common type of infraction). I cannot imagine what sort of outcome you were hoping for, but it appears you didn't get it.
The mods have been here. In this very thread. They have elected not to change the post.
We can only conclude that if this is an infraction of the rules, it's not sufficient to invoke moderator interaction. I hope that this point is clear to you.
What's more, this happens dozens of times a day here on Hacker News, yet I cannot find even a single other instance of you leveling this complaint even as you comment in threads that commit this infraction.
So clearly, even you don't believe it should be universally enforced. You only perked up to this rule when Rust got mentioned.
