[jlindley]

About the title, "Blocking I/O: it's not just for pansies".

Whether the title wording is ironic or sincere -- and I'm guessing it's used jokingly -- using it presumes a very specific shared outlook with the reader that is, likely as not, wrong. Certainly wrong in my case.

I'm not claiming the title is homophobic. I claim it's distracting to some portion of readers and serves to introduce the actual content of the linked submission poorly. The submission title does not nearly reflect the attitude or writing in the actual linked post which is, in comparison: specific, technical, and non-abrasive.

[epall]

Frankly, I agree with you (and I wrote that title). I'd much prefer to have submitted it with the actual article's title, but I didn't think anybody would read/upvote it in that case, so the post would die without HN seeing it. I've noticed a lot of people lately getting all excited about async I/O, and I wanted something from the other side to hit the front page so people would read it, think about it, and comment. It would be interesting to A/B test submission titles, but unfortunately HN doesn't really support that. When we do get dupes, it does seem that the most inflammatory, least informative titles tend to win.

[solutionyogi]

Relax. It's just a title. Let's talk about the article which (even though from 2008) is actually interesting.

[axod]

It's also unashamedly biased. I'd take it all with a massive dose of salt.

[kbob]

It's also immature. I'll be sad if HN becomes Reddit. The original article's headline is much better - more descriptive, more informative.

[btilly]

FWIW I automatically read it as definition 2 at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pansies and the potential of it being a homophobic slur would have never occurred to me.