3 ms·
Hmm. The tweet, and thread on Twitter, has more actual information on the vulnerability than the page you linked to. You have to click through to the actual pap
by lambda 8y ago
Hmm. The tweet, and thread on Twitter, has more actual information on the vulnerability than the page you linked to. You have to click through to the actual paper to get the additional information. I feel like the Twitter link gives a better quick summary information.
- sctb 8y agoI think clicking through to actual papers is something HN is up for!
- lucb1e 8y agoThen why not just link the paper? I personally like the summaries. Papers are typically written to sound smart, not to read nicely. HTML scales, users can configure the font, you can click pictures to enlarge... but instead we choose to use PDFs. Why? I speculate it is because everyone else who sounds smart does it. This particular paper is not as bad as most (no serif font, 8pt text, small and unreadable diagrams, references instead of practical links) so it's definitely not all directed at this particular paper, but I do question the usefulness of linking to a longer text instead of to a useful summary that has a link to the longer text. GP is right in that the first 15 words of the tweet told me more than the whole 269 word blog post. I also recognized the author on Twitter but not on the blog. I'm happy the tweet is still linked in the comments.
- lambda 8y agoYes, my point is, either leave the link to the Twitter thread (which also contains a link to the paper), or link directly to the paper. Linking to this summary page, which contains a brief abstract that contains more words but less information than the Twitter post, seems to be worse than any of the other options.