3 ms·

The site in question: https://web3isgoinggreat.com/ https://web3isgoinggreat.com/

ndonnellan 3y ago
I wonder why Wired didn't provide any hyperlinks despite mentioning the site (italicized) several times. Seems like common internet courtesy. Perhaps just a direct-from-print copy.
blakesterz 3y ago
I can't help but be reminded of Fucked Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fucked_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fucked_Company I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same?
- shagie 3y ago
  My favorite bit about Fucked Company is there are archived captures of it from 2002 in the Library of Congress. https://www.loc.gov/item/lcwaN0020126/ https://www.loc.gov/item/lcwaN0020126/
  - winkywooster 3y ago
    what's interesting is at the library of congress it looks like it's using the wayback machine (similar ui), but the internet archive has excluded it from their results. also, the library of congress version is not very complete. it only goes back a few pages, and most of the specific announcement pages (all?) don't work.
    - shagie 3y ago
      The LOC instance was trying to capture the idea / atmosphere of the post 2001-09-11 environment (it is in the September 11, 2001 Web Archive collection). It wasn't trying for a deep capture of the content but rather a "this is what it was like." Wayback machine appears to have been removed as part of the publication of the book (guessing). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4021548 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4021548 The LOC has a different charter - its not trying to be "this is a copy of the full site at the time" but rather a historical documents around specific events ( https://www.loc.gov/web-archives/collections/ https://www.loc.gov/web-archives/collections/ ) and has a different charter than the internet archive. https://www.loc.gov/programs/web-archiving/about-this-program/ https://www.loc.gov/programs/web-archiving/about-this-progra...
- bsenftner 3y ago
  Along those lines, remember "Fat Babies" - the site the documented terrible tech managers, naming names?

I wonder why Wired didn't provide any hyperlinks despite mentioning the site (italicized) several times. Seems like common internet courtesy. Perhaps just a direct-from-print copy.

blakesterz 3y ago

I can't help but be reminded of Fucked Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fucked_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fucked_Company I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same?

shagie 3y ago
My favorite bit about Fucked Company is there are archived captures of it from 2002 in the Library of Congress. https://www.loc.gov/item/lcwaN0020126/ https://www.loc.gov/item/lcwaN0020126/
- winkywooster 3y ago
  what's interesting is at the library of congress it looks like it's using the wayback machine (similar ui), but the internet archive has excluded it from their results. also, the library of congress version is not very complete. it only goes back a few pages, and most of the specific announcement pages (all?) don't work.
  - shagie 3y ago
    The LOC instance was trying to capture the idea / atmosphere of the post 2001-09-11 environment (it is in the September 11, 2001 Web Archive collection). It wasn't trying for a deep capture of the content but rather a "this is what it was like." Wayback machine appears to have been removed as part of the publication of the book (guessing). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4021548 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4021548 The LOC has a different charter - its not trying to be "this is a copy of the full site at the time" but rather a historical documents around specific events ( https://www.loc.gov/web-archives/collections/ https://www.loc.gov/web-archives/collections/ ) and has a different charter than the internet archive. https://www.loc.gov/programs/web-archiving/about-this-program/ https://www.loc.gov/programs/web-archiving/about-this-progra...
bsenftner 3y ago
Along those lines, remember "Fat Babies" - the site the documented terrible tech managers, naming names?