i saw this story on other sites and immediately thought: hacker news will be the best place to follow along with this only to see it flagged dead. it does seem like this seems to be happening quite a lot when a certain group of people and their competence levels are being covered.
thanks for not burying this particular instance.
By the time the story hit other sites, HN had already been discussing it for quite a while (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43875476), and that thread had gone through the usual life cycle and was falling off the frontpage.
We've re-upped it now, because lots of people are having the experience you described: seeing the story on other sites and wondering why it isn't on HN.
See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43896978 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43893699 and let us know if you have any questions that aren't answered there!
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43875476
And that article contains a link to the 404media.co story, reporting the hack, and other commentary about the security of the app.
And there are several mentions in that discussion thread about the 404media.co story, and I've pinned another link to the top of that thread.
If we had a separate thread it would split the discussion and we always avoid doing that; it makes more sense to keep it all in one thread, as it really is one topic.
It should also be noted the article specifically states:
“The hacker has not obtained the messages of cabinet members, Waltz, and people he spoke to . . .”, so it’s not actually a breach of administration communication that it first seems to be from the headline.
afavour•9mo ago
robocat•9mo ago
afavour•9mo ago
But alas. We won’t get any of that.
croemer•9mo ago
We can still comment and read, it's just not shown by default. I found it by submitting it myself just to find it flagged.
dang•9mo ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43875476 was on the front page, giving you that, when you posted this!
dang•9mo ago
At 6pm yesterday this update came out, which seems to have gotten more public attention, but HN had already been discussing the original in-depth article for quite a while by then. What to do?
The story itself is on-topic. The question is whether the update (the current submission) should be counted as a follow-up [1] to the earlier thread, or whether it should be counted as significant new information (SNI) [2], and thus have its own thread.
On HN two articles count as the same story if they would lead to substantially the same discussion. That's pretty clearly the case with 43875476 (the original thread) and 43890179 (this update). In such cases we merge the threads, as tomhow mentioned, so as not to have a split discussion.
But it's clear that there's community demand to discuss this story today. Since "well actually we were ahead of the curve" is no way to speak to a hungry beast, we're going to re-up the original thread, so discussion of the story can continue on the frontpage, and pin a link to the update article to the top of that one (tomhow already did this), so people can read both.
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...