3 ms·

Rehashing, in this case, seems to mean communicating. This isn't a random aggregator, Freight Waves is a well-known industry specific site. A world where this

Rehashing, in this case, seems to mean communicating. This isn't a random aggregator, Freight Waves is a well-known industry specific site. A world where this wasn't rehashed by Freight Waves is a world where you have to read every Reddit board to gain knowledge. > unrelated to listening to the radio in itself None of the links you mention, nor any comment or headline, includes the word listening. I don't see how any of the headlines, on HN, Freight Waves, or Reddit, or content, on HN, Freight Waves, or Reddit, could be read as related to listening. > but a lot easier to talk about it directly than via rehashes. What does this mean, exactly? EDIT: Can't reply due to HN timeout, maybe the HN link was originally to Jalopnik saying they can't listen to the radio, and it's cached in your browser? On my end, it's always been a link to Freight Waves with the headline "Amazon bans its drivers from moving their own lips...(something something, can't see, I'm on mobile)"

zamadatix 2y ago
All of this completely ignores that the current source is Jalopnik so I'm not sure if I should take that as you agreeing there but just not in the second case. I will say Freight Waves is at least a better source than Jalopnik for this, they attempt some actual direct reporting instead of talking about things like "That’s an opinion shared by many Freight Waves readers". To be clear, I'm not saying the sites themselves are useless or not - just the wrong thing to post as a source for discussion here. From the HN guidelines: "Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter". Freight Waves would probably be acceptable enough for that, Jalopnik is pretty poor in this particular case. > None of the links you mention, nor any comment or headline I see, mentions listening. Apologies, that is a slip on my part - meant singing along to the radio. A great example of why you should look at the original instead of commentary :p. > What does this mean, exactly? When you talk about what an article which talks about what another article talks about what people talk about what someone said it becomes a lot less clear than staging a conversation around what was originally said instead.
- zamadatix 2y ago
  I realize this part sounds particularly silly: > instead of talking about things like "That’s an opinion shared by many Freight Waves readers". It should read more like: > instead of things like the Jalopnik reporting "That’s an opinion shared by many Freight Waves readers". I.e. obviously it's not a rehashing problem for Freight Wave to report what its own user polls say.

zamadatix 2y ago

All of this completely ignores that the current source is Jalopnik so I'm not sure if I should take that as you agreeing there but just not in the second case. I will say Freight Waves is at least a better source than Jalopnik for this, they attempt some actual direct reporting instead of talking about things like "That’s an opinion shared by many Freight Waves readers". To be clear, I'm not saying the sites themselves are useless or not - just the wrong thing to post as a source for discussion here. From the HN guidelines: "Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter". Freight Waves would probably be acceptable enough for that, Jalopnik is pretty poor in this particular case. > None of the links you mention, nor any comment or headline I see, mentions listening. Apologies, that is a slip on my part - meant singing along to the radio. A great example of why you should look at the original instead of commentary :p. > What does this mean, exactly? When you talk about what an article which talks about what another article talks about what people talk about what someone said it becomes a lot less clear than staging a conversation around what was originally said instead.

zamadatix 2y ago
I realize this part sounds particularly silly: > instead of talking about things like "That’s an opinion shared by many Freight Waves readers". It should read more like: > instead of things like the Jalopnik reporting "That’s an opinion shared by many Freight Waves readers". I.e. obviously it's not a rehashing problem for Freight Wave to report what its own user polls say.