+1. "Nvidia won, we all lost" sets a very different tone than "NVIDIA is full of shit". It's clearly not the tone the author intended to set.

Even more concerning is that, by editorializing the title of an article that is (in part) about how Nvidia uses their market dominance to pressure reviewers and control the narrative, we must question whether or not the mod team is complicit in this effort.

Is team green afraid that a title like "NVIDIA is full of shit" on the front page of HN is bad for their image or stock price? Was HN pressured to change the name?

Sometimes, editorialization is just a dumb and lazy mistake. But editorializing something like this is a lot more concerning. And it's made worse by the fact that the title was changed by the mods.

When titles are changed, the intent as I understand it is to nudge discussion towards thoughtful exchange. Discussion is forever threatening to spin out of control towards flame wars and the moderators work hard to prevent that.

I think that if you want to understand why it might be helpful to change the title, consider how well "NVIDIA is full of shit" follows the HN comment guidelines.

I don't imagine you will agree with the title change no matter what, but I believe that's essentially the rationale. Note that the topic wasn't flagged, which if suppression of the author's ideas or protection of Nvidia were goals would have been more effective.

(FWIW I have plenty of issues with HN but how titles are handled isn't one of them.)

Barbara Streisand requested it.

I think it's pretty obvious. People were investing like crazy into Nvidia on the "AI" gamble. Now everybody needs to keep hyping up Nvidia and AI no matter reality. (Until it starts to become obvious and then the selloff starts)

Haven't you figured out the new global agenda yet? Guidelines (and rules) exist only to serve the masters.