4 ms·
Shouldn't this have a "(1939)" suffix on the title according to HN rules? ;)
by VorpalWay 18d ago
Shouldn't this have a "(1939)" suffix on the title according to HN rules? ;)
- sigmoid10 18d agoShould it though? I don't see such a rule. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- baxtr 18d agounwritten rules
- sigmoid10 17d agoWhy should anyone know or care about it then? This is not a static platform with a static userbase.
- baxtr 17d agoanother unwritten rule: don't take everything too serious that you read here ;)
- sigmoid10 17d agoThen you should adhere to yet another unwritten rule while we're at it: Don't use smileys. Especially not to change the meaning of your statements. You can just drop them and say what you mean, that makes communication easier and clearer. This is not facebook where people talk via emojis.
- delichon 18d agoKaffee: Corporal, would you turn to the page in this book that says where the mess hall is, please? Barnes: Lieutenant Kaffee, that’s not in the book, sir. Kaffee: You mean to say in all your time at Gitmo you’ve never had a meal?
- sigmoid10 17d agoYour quote should give proper attribution according to the rules.
- ape4 18d agoIf an article is a few years old then it could be out-of-date. But if an article is almost 100 years old then its classic.
- deleted 18d ago[deleted]