5 ms·
>If you read further down the Twitter thread you’ll see others point out that AWS actually did acknowledge him in the release and thus his original rant isn’t a
by jasode 6y ago
>If you read further down the Twitter thread you’ll see others point out that AWS actually did acknowledge him in the release and thus his original rant isn’t accurate. He acknowledges that later in the thread.
Thanks for informing us with the clarification. The original tweet was 11:16 UTC. This HN thread was submitted 11:23 UTC.
That twitter reply showing the acknowledgement in "NOTICES.txt" was later at 11:54 UTC.
https://twitter.com/maxibanki/status/1317071448322789376 https://twitter.com/maxibanki/status/1317071448322789376
- whoknew1122 6y agoI'm not sure the timeline is important, other than to say HN posters shouldn't submit incendiary tweets as HN topics without some sort of corroboration. Especially when the person who tweets and posts on HN are the same. Here's the timeline I saw: 11:16 - A person blames AWS of something without additional context and understanding 11:23 - Presumably the same person posts on HN (to signal boost? farm karma from the anti-Amazon crowd sure to pop up? both?) Never:Never - OP apologizes for rousing the HN pitchfork mob
- barkingcat 6y agoHacker news never reads original posts either way, let alone followups to original posts :) I'll be downvoted, but that's a symptom of how poorly the audience of this site understands the issues at hand. (myself included)
- chuckSu 6y agoThis!
- cutemonster 6y agoI read the original posts. In my experience, most people do.
- tingletech 6y agoI read the comments first, to decide if I want to read the post. But I read the post before I comment.