The article, and its original title, are structured and "theoretic" (not quite the word I want, but fairly close): it is very similar to college-level reading material. The replacement title honestly sounds more like "silly blog post from someone who hasn't thought much about the problem yet". I thereby clicked this link because I was interested in seeing the comments, not the article; it was only after I saw the author say the title was modified that I bothered looking over the article. I guess a comment to make is that the original author also likely wanted to share his content with everybody, and probably already attempted to choose a title that he felt portrayed his content in a light that would make that possible. Sometimes, titles should be more context-specific, but the kind of audience this post was targeting is probably itself similar to Hacker News. Meanwhile, due to Hacker News having an official policy against the modification of titles (for better or for worse), if it isn't clear that the title was re-targetted (maybe pointing to a specific paragraph or idea), the reader will expect the title of the actual post to be equivalent to the one submitted, and make judgements accordingly.

no worries. You seem to be better with titles than me anyway :)