6 ms·
Meta, won't comment on the site, won't click. I'm fed up with this category of click baity titles that are designed to be enigmatic rather than informative. Th
by rixed 2mo ago
Meta, won't comment on the site, won't click. I'm fed up with this category of click baity titles that are designed to be enigmatic rather than informative.
The guideline do not mention this, apart maybe from:
If the title includes the name of the site, please take it out, because the site name will be displayed after the link.
I'd prefer HN if we made it a habit to editorialize such titles consisting solely of a Domainname or a single word.
- jeremyjh 2mo agoWithout clicking you’d never know why it’s the title.
- dijksterhuis 2mo agothat's kinda the point -- titles on HN usually indicate the sort of content that's behind clicking through, and whether it might be something interesting to the prospective reader. this one doesn't because it's the name of the company.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- dijksterhuis 2mo agoThe actual header on the page is > We are building the multiplexer for all work. imo this would have been a better way to do the HN submission title (with or without [terminal]) > Superlogical: We are building the [terminal] multiplexer for all work
- CamperBob2 2mo agoI clicked on the link and read the page, but I still don't have the faintest idea what a "multiplexer for all work" is, or why I want one. The more I read about it, the less I understand about it. Guess I'm not the target audience. At least I know that now, after several minutes of reading and head-scratching. I almost get tmux -- although I still don't understand why it's better than simply opening multiple terminal window instances like I've always done in Windows -- but I'm struggling to see how the concept of terminal multiplexing applies elsewhere.
- therealdrag0 2mo agoSame, at first, I thought it would be something like Glean for enterprise information joining to follow feature delivery or something and then I saw terminal and I gave up.
- aprdm 2mo agoIf you're using Windows you're likely not the audience. Which is fine.
- CamperBob2 2mo agoNot really; not without understanding what am I missing. Why does Linux need a "multiplexer for all work," while Windows either already has one, doesn't need one, or couldn't use one?
- backscratches 2mo agoA Multiplexer let's you run multiple terminals in one window, this is a new one. WindowsOS does not get as nice of tools as Linux generally.
- ninkendo 2mo agoExcept you don't need a multiplexer for that. Essentially all modern terminals have tabs. Many have split-screen. Even windows ships with a half-decent terminal with tabs and multiple panes by default now! A multiplexer's job is to do the whole multiple tabs/panes/windows thing independently of the terminal itself, but (a) the UX for eg. tmux is so much worse than that of a good terminal UI, and (b) you only need that if you plan on connecting remotely (see my other comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49108483 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49108483).
- hatefulmoron 2mo agoAfter using a tiling WM, it feels like this is a window manager job. It even works for non-terminal applications.
- pzo 2mo agowebsite is very vague - not useful content - no information, some gradient box without any content, team thats it. Super annoying landing page. Even if HN title is not descriptive the website is not helping to figure out what this is all about.
- rplnt 2mo agoOne of the worst I've seen was title editorialized from original "Someone: something [x.com]" to just "Something [x.com]".