[palish]

Can we stop using "epic fail" and other internet-fanboy like colloquialisms in our titles please?

It's not our title. That is the title of the post. So for example, if Joel's next article is entitled "The Cat Pictures Were an Epic Win For Suzie's New Startup", then that's a completely valid HN submission title.

[tjr]

Of course, in this case, the author of the post was also the submitter, so it truly was his title, but in general, sure.

[palish]

Ah, gotcha.

... But it really was epic just how horribly that line of code failed, though. 5 bugs in just 48 characters; or 1 bug every 9.6 chars. The rest of the system was probably equally epic.

[raganwald]

May I suggest that _epic_ is not synonymous with _severe_. Epic suggests scale in both time and place. To me, an epic bug would affect a large number of people over a very long period of time. Perhaps something to do with IE security would be epic by virtue of its world-wide and decade-long impact.

On a smaller scale, epic might describe something that brings an entire company down, perhaps (if you believe some of the rants) the decision to rewrite the Netscape browser from the ground up.

JM2C on "epic"...

[palish]

Since your reply may possibly reshape the way in which "epic" is used on the internet, affecting a large number of people over a long period of time, would you consider it to be an "epic reply"? And if so, does that imply we're currently in an "epic debate"?