4 ms·

Code has value over time where as NYT content does not, unless it’s to make a case why one shouldn’t put to much weight in what it publishes. Code is facts abo

Code has value over time where as NYT content does not, unless it’s to make a case why one shouldn’t put to much weight in what it publishes. Code is facts about an organizations business. To the extent factual information is created by the NYT it most heavily skews toward sports scores and weather which is not the NYTs property to preserve. I don’t have an issue with their paywall but I think the most valuable part about their content after a week or so is to point out how wrong they typically are. My guess is, removing the ability to call BS is the motivating factor here.

endisneigh 3y ago
> Code has value over time where as NYT content does not, unless it’s to make a case why one shouldn’t put to much weight in what it publishes. Code is facts about an organizations business. To the extent factual information is created by the NYT it most heavily skews toward sports scores and weather which is not the NYTs property to preserve. I don’t have an issue with their paywall but I think the most valuable part about their content after a week or so is to point out how wrong they typically are. My guess is, removing the ability to call BS is the motivating factor here. This is a good example of what I’m talking about. Tech bros devaluing other professions work, lol.
- 0x445442 3y ago
  If most of what was written wasn’t utter tripe the “tech bros” would probably value it more, lol.
xboxnolifes 3y ago
If the articles didn't preserve their value over time, then people wouldn't care to archive them.