Hacker News Reader

Comment by dang | Hacker News Reader

See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43890179 for discussion of whether that article should count as a follow-up or SNI.

Normally I wouldn't link to meta discussion but this was such a weird borderline case that I spent over an hour trying to figure it out. Maybe that makes it interesting.

Edit: in case anyone's confused about the sequence here, micahflee posted the current thread 2 days ago. The timestamp at the top of this page is an artifact of us re-upping it (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).

View on HN

FWIW, I never clicked into this when I originally saw it because I'm not that interested in a "technical analysis", but gained interest when the other title said that the app was hacked. To me, that's worth discussing, but here that lede is a bit buried. And I now only know about it because a friend sent me the link.

I do feel there's a pattern of me reading some interesting tech news, then thinking "wait, why didn't I see this discussed on HN?", to searching for it and finding a buried/flagged HN discussion due to it being somewhat tied to politics (what isn't?)

I have recently switched to the “active threads” feed which shows flagged content: https://news.ycombinator.com/active

As a non-native English understander, I find it funny that discussions related to politics are “flagged”. I.e. carrying a flag.

Or "had a flag waved at them", like football assistant referees or F1 peoples.

Or “called them over by raising a hand” with “flagged down”.

Someone carrying a flag is flagging.

Someone who had a flag applied to them was flagged.

Noun to verb conjugations are unofficial English. But we love verbing our words. Google has been verbed into Googling. And when someone is the target of Google we call that getting Googled.

It's again, unofficial and unwritten and unstudied American English. So don't sweat it. It's how our slang evolves. Apologies for the lack of consistency in our language!

> It's again, unofficial and unwritten and unstudied American English.

Hm? Where'd you get that impression?

It's certainly unofficial -- English has no official governing body, so essentially _all_ English is unofficial. However, zero-derived denominal verbs are quite common in even formal written English [0], are well studied [1], and aren't at all limited to American English [2].

----

[0] As seen in this very thread.

[1] It took me almost no time to find a random academic paper [1a] and two Wikipedia articles [1b][1c].

[1a] https://dingo.sbs.arizona.edu/~hharley/PDFs/HarleyDenominalV...

[1b] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denominal_verb

[1c] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_(word_formation)

[2] https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/the-pedant-noun...

I also read it as carrying a flag (applied by others) to highlight that it needs to be reviewed or hidden.

Imo it's a brand new thing so it deserves this technical analysis, the follow up also deserves its own post because of its both importance and political/security nature (government app attacked).

It would be if Google announced Gmail and there was a technical analysis and then it was hacked the same day, I would hope there would be a post for that.

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43896978 for why we didn't do that.

Short version: it's not possible to have separate discussions in the way you describe. They would just get totally blended.

I like your Gmail analogy but I don't think it applies here. The "technical analysis" article is driven by the same political/security concerns as the "hacked" update.

Thanks for adding the little bit of meta commentary here. I think it helps to understand a bit more about how the site functions. And with this case, particular, it is a very useful timeline to help follow the discussion.

This article doesn’t include information on the Hack.

The 404 media article linked in this article is an earlier article.

The 404 media article with the hack was posted last night at 6pm. So that needs a seperate post, and should not be marked duped.

I think I addressed all these points in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43896978 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43901823, but if you read those and still have a question that isn't answered there, I can take a crack at it.

dang: the two posts are different topics, also isn't this one "show hn"? I'm so confused by the application of rules around self-posts.

They are the same topic in the sense that the HN threads about them are going to lead to the exact same discussion. If you read https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43896978 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43901823, that should be clear - but if not, let me know and I'll try to clarify further.

"Show HN" is a separate thing entirely - it's true that the submitter of this article was the author (which is great), but that's not enough to make a post a Show HN (https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html).

SNI means?

significant new information

Sorry! norome is correct. See https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com