1. 16
  1.  

  2. 7

    Great read. My favorite tl;dr;

    By the way, NaN != NaN, so Aristotle was wrong about that whole “Law of Identity” thing.

    1. 11

      Please stop adding author and summary to titles.

      1. 5

        May I ask why? Personally this seems to be useful information to have in a title, especially when the actual title is as vague as this one.

        1. 5

          Generally speaking changing titles is not great–it confuses search, it adds opportunities for editorializing, etc.

          If the title is vague, filling in the story description is usually a better option. That also lets you do things like link out to relevant background material.

          1. 2

            If the title is vague, filling in the story description is usually a better option.

            The real takeaway from the comment. For any new people reading, Lobsters' homepage has a symbol to the right of the title that looks like this…

            http://graphemica.com/%E2%98%B6

            …that links to a description giving extra info on the article. Result looks just like the page you’re seeing but with the text right under (example) “via ThisIs_MyName.” That comes from the text field of Submit Story. Most regulars seem to prefer you use it for extra details that might clutter up a title on front page.

        2. 2

          Will do.

          1. 5

            Please keep adding author and synopsis! I get a lot of value from being able to follow an author’s work and decide to read or not.

            1. 2

              It’s fine to add them–just in the story description and not the title. :)