3 ms·
OK, that's freaky. I read the HN comments first, then the original article. By the time I read the original article, it had been updated to quote the HN thread:
by lambda 12y ago
OK, that's freaky. I read the HN comments first, then the original article. By the time I read the original article, it had been updated to quote the HN thread:
On Hacker News, the grumbling about the settlement was
immediate. “I honestly do not understand why the
plaintiffs would settle this case,” one poster wrote. But
some saw another side: “What did the engineers risk with
this lawsuit? Nothing. What did the law firm risk?
Getting paid peanuts for hundreds of hours they spend on
the case if they lose.”
I did not know that the NY Times had started updating their articles with quotes from discussions about the same articles. Do they base which quotes they choose on your referrer? Will I see different quotes if I view this linked from Reddit?
- winter_blue 12y agoI read the article first, and thought they were referring to another older HN thread on this topic. Thanks for pointing this out. It's a bit hard to believe (and insane) that they're updating their article real-time. And they've not even marked it as an edit.
- apu 12y agoAlso note how cavalierly and routinely the Times (and most other "traditional" publishers) avoid actually linking to this thread, or basically anything other than internal links to other Times articles.