←back to thread

508 points zdw | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.238s | source
Show context
klik99 ◴[] No.42743428[source]
"If you want to try it, be aware that it requires Intel Pentium 166MHz or above."

Made me laugh. Fun article, also really love the genre of "bored smart person goes too deep on something that the end result is obvious by common sense but proving it requires surprising amount of ingenuity and scrappiness"

replies(4): >>42743506 #>>42743514 #>>42743529 #>>42748175 #
fishstock25 ◴[] No.42743514[source]
Totally agree.

And a great example that truth is complicated, expensive and uncomfortable. It's much easier to postulate an evil nation-state entity with a bad plan (without evidence) than to dig through the thicket of this article. It's much cheaper as well, certainly in terms of time and knowhow. And it's also much more comfortable to claim you're the victim and have uncovered a conspiracy, rather than realize this was just the result of the patchwork typical of engineering.

Kudos to the author.

replies(3): >>42743569 #>>42743630 #>>42747553 #
klik99 ◴[] No.42743569[source]
Yeah, the insane takes spread faster but it takes more time and resources to look into it than just come to conclusions early.

The worst thing is this creates an environment where most people are either completely credulous and buy into everything or completely incredulous and think everything is unfounded. It's just exhausting to have a healthy level of skepticism these days, and maybe 1 out of 1000 times (number source: from thin air) something that sounds insane actually has some truth to it.

replies(3): >>42743711 #>>42746200 #>>42747778 #
mschuster91 ◴[] No.42746200[source]
The problem is that good journalism doesn't have funding. Otherwise this shit would never have made it into a newspaper, maybe outside of a really shitty yellow rag.
replies(1): >>42746355 #
DaiPlusPlus ◴[] No.42746355[source]
> The problem is that good journalism doesn't have funding.

The BBC and Reuters can be posited as counterexamples to your assertion. They’re good journalists and well-funded (and not primarily by advertising either).

replies(3): >>42746514 #>>42746892 #>>42747906 #
1. mschuster91 ◴[] No.42746892[source]
BBC is under constant threat of getting defunded, it's almost a meme at this point, and on top of that is generally under constant attack. Reuters doesn't do much local or regional stuff.