3 ms·
A discussion happening 3 years ago in 2015 shouldn't prevent a new discussion today. A few weeks ago, perhaps. But not 3 years ago.
by meri_dian 9y ago
A discussion happening 3 years ago in 2015 shouldn't prevent a new discussion today. A few weeks ago, perhaps. But not 3 years ago.
- grzm 9y agoI don't think Dan's intent was to preclude it from being discussed again, but rather to provide an additional resource for those interested in the discussion. If it had been the former, the submission would have been marked as a dupe.
- 52-6F-62 9y agoThis. I'm glad he posted the link as the author and developer is present to comment. I'm also glad this was posted again or I never would have found it. To add to that, I've never read The Library of Babel, though I'd encountered Borges a number of times before. It's near the top of my list now.
- dang 9y agoOf course! The cutoff is about a year, as the HN FAQ says: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html. If the repost weren't legit, we'd mark it as a dupe. The link to a previous discussion is because readers like those. Recent explanation here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16250070 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16250070
- meri_dian 9y agoAh ok, my fault. Sorry for misunderstanding.