Comment by fsflover 2 years ago Ongoing discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40854836 3 comments fsflover Reply dang 2 years ago We merged that thread hither since the submission was more about the significant new information. account42 2 years ago Odd choice to move the discussion from a submission of the official website to one about a blog by an (afaict) unrelated pundit. dang 2 years ago Yes, normally we'd do the opposite (especially when the article isn't particularly good), but in this case it was easier to trace the significant new information this way.
dang 2 years ago We merged that thread hither since the submission was more about the significant new information. account42 2 years ago Odd choice to move the discussion from a submission of the official website to one about a blog by an (afaict) unrelated pundit. dang 2 years ago Yes, normally we'd do the opposite (especially when the article isn't particularly good), but in this case it was easier to trace the significant new information this way.
account42 2 years ago Odd choice to move the discussion from a submission of the official website to one about a blog by an (afaict) unrelated pundit. dang 2 years ago Yes, normally we'd do the opposite (especially when the article isn't particularly good), but in this case it was easier to trace the significant new information this way.
dang 2 years ago Yes, normally we'd do the opposite (especially when the article isn't particularly good), but in this case it was easier to trace the significant new information this way.
We merged that thread hither since the submission was more about the significant new information.
Odd choice to move the discussion from a submission of the official website to one about a blog by an (afaict) unrelated pundit.
Yes, normally we'd do the opposite (especially when the article isn't particularly good), but in this case it was easier to trace the significant new information this way.