3 ms·

Does archive.is have problems? I tried this article with it and it didn't work: https://www.wsj.com/business/entrepreneurship/burned-out-and-unemployed-young-p

by dmortin 13d ago

Does archive.is have problems? I tried this article with it and it didn't work: https://www.wsj.com/business/entrepreneurship/burned-out-and-unemployed-young-people-in-china-are-launching-ai-startups-c5ebcdc3 https://www.wsj.com/business/entrepreneurship/burned-out-and... Error: Invalid InterceptionId.

amadeoeoeo 13d ago
Since a few months archive.is is "unstable" from Spain. I thought the reason is the ISP but sometimes by just reloading it works... Can anybody shed some light?
- embedding-shape 13d ago
  Since a few months archive.is is unstable regardless of where I connect from, Spain or not. Are others not seeing the same thing? Maybe 20% of the times I try to use it the servers aren't responding.
cluckindan 13d ago
Avoid those archive sites like the plague. They are not trustworthy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Archive.today_guidance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Archive.today_guidan...
- apexalpha 13d ago
  They are the only reliable way for me to read proper news in Economist / FT / WSJ / WashingtonPost etc... Well except paying $300 a month I guess.
  - no-name-here 13d ago
    > They are the only reliable way for me to read proper news in Economist / FT / WSJ / WashingtonPost etc... > Well except paying $300 a month It looks like the WSJ is available for $2/mo or the WaPo for $2.50 mo. You probably don’t need all of them simultaneously as they frequently cover the same topics, including pretty much all of the big news stories - subscribe to one for a year then switch to another. And even if you aren’t subscribed to all of them you are still contributing in a small way to keeping good journalism alive.
    - apexalpha 13d ago
      I am already subscribed to 2 papers in my own country at ~$50 total since one comes in print once a week. Just a matter of priorities.
      - no-name-here 13d ago
        My reply was to help the grandparent commenter who said "They are the only reliable way for me to read proper news". If you already have multiple paid news subscriptions that are working great for you, you can ignore my suggestions. Edit: Ah, you were the grandparent commenter who said "They are the only reliable way for me to read proper news."
  - javier2 13d ago
    its under 15$ a month...
    - mitxela 13d ago
      Each. For over 20 of them.
      - no-name-here 13d ago
        Is that sarcasm, or do you really need 20 of them? I'm an avid news reader, and there is no way I could get through even a fraction of that number of news sources daily. And isn't most major news covered by every one of the biggest news sources - one great source can accommodate the vast majority of news topics for someone, especially if they are on a tight budget.
        mitxela 13d ago
        How do you know which ones Hacker News is going to link to?
  - cluckindan 13d ago
    Except you cannot know if the system has tampered with the content you think is genuinely from those sites.
    - embedding-shape 13d ago
      Fucking sucks, what's the alternative for people without money or people who the papers/businesses don't allow them to do subscribe because of the country they're from/in?
      - no-name-here 13d ago
        Use sources such as PBS, NPR, etc. - they are available globally, and there are non-US-based sources if readers prefer.
        embedding-shape 13d ago
        Tried searching for the submission article or even a mention of this event on their websites but I found nothing. Are you sure these are actually faithful replacements of everything that archive.is/.today unlocks for people? It's a lot of paywalls they remove, lots of stuff isn't reported elsewhere.
        mitxela 12d ago
        Sources that.... don't post the things people are trying to read? Besides, if it's free, you're the product.
- mapt 13d ago
  At the bottom of that page FYI - "Note: archive.org, or web.archive.org, run by the Internet Archive and the most-used web archive on Wikipedia, is uninvolved with and entirely separate from archive.today. Please keep using archive.org"
  - cluckindan 13d ago
    What’s your point? archive.is and archive.today are the same service. My ISP blocks both and I’m not even in Spain.
    - mapt 13d ago
      "those archive sites" could be read two ways, and I read it as "sites which automatically archive the Internet" the first time. This is compounded by the fact that archive.org is the only one I knew existed until now, and I kind of assumed these were alternate domains or something.
- mitxela 13d ago
  You get the right to say this when you make a better one. Otherwise, you're just telling people to stop accessing information.

by dmortin 13d ago

amadeoeoeo 13d ago

Since a few months archive.is is "unstable" from Spain. I thought the reason is the ISP but sometimes by just reloading it works... Can anybody shed some light?

embedding-shape 13d ago
Since a few months archive.is is unstable regardless of where I connect from, Spain or not. Are others not seeing the same thing? Maybe 20% of the times I try to use it the servers aren't responding.

cluckindan 13d ago

Avoid those archive sites like the plague. They are not trustworthy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Archive.today_guidance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Archive.today_guidan...

apexalpha 13d ago
They are the only reliable way for me to read proper news in Economist / FT / WSJ / WashingtonPost etc... Well except paying $300 a month I guess.
- no-name-here 13d ago
  > They are the only reliable way for me to read proper news in Economist / FT / WSJ / WashingtonPost etc... > Well except paying $300 a month It looks like the WSJ is available for $2/mo or the WaPo for $2.50 mo. You probably don’t need all of them simultaneously as they frequently cover the same topics, including pretty much all of the big news stories - subscribe to one for a year then switch to another. And even if you aren’t subscribed to all of them you are still contributing in a small way to keeping good journalism alive.
  - apexalpha 13d ago
    I am already subscribed to 2 papers in my own country at ~$50 total since one comes in print once a week. Just a matter of priorities.
    - no-name-here 13d ago
      My reply was to help the grandparent commenter who said "They are the only reliable way for me to read proper news". If you already have multiple paid news subscriptions that are working great for you, you can ignore my suggestions. Edit: Ah, you were the grandparent commenter who said "They are the only reliable way for me to read proper news."
- javier2 13d ago
  its under 15$ a month...
  - mitxela 13d ago
    Each. For over 20 of them.
    - no-name-here 13d ago
      Is that sarcasm, or do you really need 20 of them? I'm an avid news reader, and there is no way I could get through even a fraction of that number of news sources daily. And isn't most major news covered by every one of the biggest news sources - one great source can accommodate the vast majority of news topics for someone, especially if they are on a tight budget.
      - mitxela 13d ago
        How do you know which ones Hacker News is going to link to?
- cluckindan 13d ago
  Except you cannot know if the system has tampered with the content you think is genuinely from those sites.
  - embedding-shape 13d ago
    Fucking sucks, what's the alternative for people without money or people who the papers/businesses don't allow them to do subscribe because of the country they're from/in?
    - no-name-here 13d ago
      Use sources such as PBS, NPR, etc. - they are available globally, and there are non-US-based sources if readers prefer.
      - embedding-shape 13d ago
        Tried searching for the submission article or even a mention of this event on their websites but I found nothing. Are you sure these are actually faithful replacements of everything that archive.is/.today unlocks for people? It's a lot of paywalls they remove, lots of stuff isn't reported elsewhere.
      - mitxela 12d ago
        Sources that.... don't post the things people are trying to read? Besides, if it's free, you're the product.
mapt 13d ago
At the bottom of that page FYI - "Note: archive.org, or web.archive.org, run by the Internet Archive and the most-used web archive on Wikipedia, is uninvolved with and entirely separate from archive.today. Please keep using archive.org"
- cluckindan 13d ago
  What’s your point? archive.is and archive.today are the same service. My ISP blocks both and I’m not even in Spain.
  - mapt 13d ago
    "those archive sites" could be read two ways, and I read it as "sites which automatically archive the Internet" the first time. This is compounded by the fact that archive.org is the only one I knew existed until now, and I kind of assumed these were alternate domains or something.
mitxela 13d ago
You get the right to say this when you make a better one. Otherwise, you're just telling people to stop accessing information.