Malbolge has been considered theoretically impossible to program for a longer time; a Lisp interpreter in Malbolge is a big breakthrough in Malbolge's history which proves that in reality, Malbolge isn't really "impossible" :) - hence I wouldn't call it a clickbait. Also, the title you proposed is exactly 45 bytes too long, so I couldn't submit it.
In fact, many relatively credible places I've seen, like my national-language Wikipedia use the word "impossible" - I just want to break the myth :).
BTW: In the rules, I can only see "Please don't do things to make titles stand out, like using uppercase or exclamation points, or saying how great an article is. It's implicit in submitting something that you think it's important." - I don't think my submissions breaks this rule (please let me know if it does!). To adress the other point, the original title/name is in the README (and it's MalbolgeLisp v1.1, or the repo name, as you wish - malbolge-lisp), not in the Github description. I felt like it's not descriptive enough and might be misleading (since you could interpret it as a malbolge interpeter _in_ lisp).
Being a github project one could argue the title of the post should have been the repository description, which is too long for HN's limit, unless you expect people to change their repository descriptions just so they fit on hacker news i think it's fair to "editorialize" the title.
In fact, many relatively credible places I've seen, like my national-language Wikipedia use the word "impossible" - I just want to break the myth :).
BTW: In the rules, I can only see "Please don't do things to make titles stand out, like using uppercase or exclamation points, or saying how great an article is. It's implicit in submitting something that you think it's important." - I don't think my submissions breaks this rule (please let me know if it does!). To adress the other point, the original title/name is in the README (and it's MalbolgeLisp v1.1, or the repo name, as you wish - malbolge-lisp), not in the Github description. I felt like it's not descriptive enough and might be misleading (since you could interpret it as a malbolge interpeter _in_ lisp).