Hacker News Reader

Comment by nativeit | Hacker News Reader

Why wonder? The user who wrote it seems to be a pretty well established user, and their public repositories suggest that they work in adjacent contexts, so it's entirely plausible they attempted to use async-ip-rotator in one of their projects.

View on HN

???

The public repos for this person that I could find that weren't forks with no activity to upstream consisted of a dice-rolling guessing game, rock-paper-scissors, and some kind of framework for downloading and transcribing audio files that does not yet download or transcribe, but implements a whole bunch of boilerplate. I find it rather difficult to believe this person engaged in a good-faith review of the async-ip-rotator code base.

I wouldn't expect somebody to use their main non throwaway account, which probably ties to their job or school to write this today... when if someone in the gov doesn't like what you say they do things like cancel your visa or sanction your employer.

Cool. I'd expect such a throwaway account to be a bare throwaway account and not have multiple learning-project style repos with activity spreading out over a period of a few years, such as you see with the author of the critique/rant posted on the DOGE guy's repo.

I wouldn't. I use a throwaway for multiple years myself lol. And he or she could just use some friend's anonymous account.

And I like how you request good faith review of a guy who is part of the team busy dismantling US government from the inside. Like who would even think to review that if not because of it. What matters is is it correct or not.

I think you're bending over backwards here to rationalize this 'review'. Assuming this person does use throwaway accounts as you suggest, you'd have to believe that in February of last year, they were busy writing a dice-guessing game and a rock-paper-scissors implementation and in February of this year, they are experienced enough to write a lengthy critique of the architecture of someone else's project. A review, by the way, that is longer than the code it criticizes.

If you believe that, that's fine. I don't.

As for the correctness of the 'review', it is absolutely nuts. Total nonsense.

> you'd have to believe that in February of last year, they were busy writing a dice-guessing game and a rock-paper-scissors implementation

Or teaching their kid. Or it was their friend. Etc.

You're bending over backwards to judge it on reputation in a case where there would not be one. If it's nonsense on merit then criticize that

It's also worth noting that Feb 6 may very well be after Marko Elez became a public figure with DOGE. The article doesn't do a great job of expanding on any of this.

Ah yeah that would make more sense

Reply on news.ycombinator.com