Comment by nilamo 3 days ago Both of those agree that is was '88... 4 comments nilamo Reply cgriswald 3 days ago I strongly suspect 1998 was a typo by OP and he was actually pointing out the discrepancy between 2 Nov and 4 Nov WRT “this day”.However the article has been updated so only the HN title has this flaw. IvyMike 3 days ago Sounds like the type of mistake I always make: Notice someone being off by two days, and in haste, post a correction that is off by ten years. giantrobot 3 days ago With that username you don't even need to be all that close to get the job done. mlyle 3 days ago I think his question was whether it was Nov 2 or Nov 4...
cgriswald 3 days ago I strongly suspect 1998 was a typo by OP and he was actually pointing out the discrepancy between 2 Nov and 4 Nov WRT “this day”.However the article has been updated so only the HN title has this flaw. IvyMike 3 days ago Sounds like the type of mistake I always make: Notice someone being off by two days, and in haste, post a correction that is off by ten years. giantrobot 3 days ago With that username you don't even need to be all that close to get the job done.
IvyMike 3 days ago Sounds like the type of mistake I always make: Notice someone being off by two days, and in haste, post a correction that is off by ten years. giantrobot 3 days ago With that username you don't even need to be all that close to get the job done.
giantrobot 3 days ago With that username you don't even need to be all that close to get the job done.
I strongly suspect 1998 was a typo by OP and he was actually pointing out the discrepancy between 2 Nov and 4 Nov WRT “this day”.
However the article has been updated so only the HN title has this flaw.
Sounds like the type of mistake I always make: Notice someone being off by two days, and in haste, post a correction that is off by ten years.
With that username you don't even need to be all that close to get the job done.
I think his question was whether it was Nov 2 or Nov 4...