Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Cybersecurity Firm’s Sharp Rise and Stunning Collapse

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 41 posts

Re: A Cybersecurity Firm’s Sharp Rise and Stunning Collapse

#21

Post by notzuck »

SilasX wrote: post #20
Ozumandias wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, people on here don't seem to understand that you read the New Yorker for narrative and literary craft, not for getting information as fast as possible.

And New Yorker article submitters don't understand that the HN crowd tends to prefer the Register style, at least for providing a focal point where everyone can get up to speed quickly for a productive discussion.

I don't think that's true and there appears to be room for both. I read both, one is good for quickly understanding what's happening / happened and the other is a much richer and interesting story. Twitter can exist in the same universe as novels you know.

Re: A Cybersecurity Firm’s Sharp Rise and Stunning Collapse

#22

Post by SilasX »

notzuck wrote: post #21
SilasX wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And New Yorker article submitters don't understand that the HN crowd tends to prefer the Register style, at least for providing a focal point where everyone can get up to speed quickly for a productive discussion.

I don't think that's true and there appears to be room for both. I read both, one is good for quickly understanding what's happening / happened and the other is a much richer and interesting story. Twitter can exist in the same universe as novels you know.

I didn't say no one should ever enjoy NYer style articles, only that the Register is better for getting everyone to the point where they can productively discuss the article. A flowery style no one will ever finish isn't as good for that.

Re: A Cybersecurity Firm’s Sharp Rise and Stunning Collapse

#24

Post by notzuck »

SilasX wrote: post #22
notzuck wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's true and there appears to be room for both. I read both, one is good for quickly understanding what's happening / happened and the other is a much richer and interesting story. Twitter can exist in the same universe as novels you know.

I didn't say no one should ever enjoy NYer style articles, only that the Register is better for getting everyone to the point where they can productively discuss the article. A flowery style no one will ever finish isn't as good for that.

[flagged]

Re: A Cybersecurity Firm’s Sharp Rise and Stunning Collapse

#25

Post by danso »

SilasX wrote: post #22
notzuck wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's true and there appears to be room for both. I read both, one is good for quickly understanding what's happening / happened and the other is a much richer and interesting story. Twitter can exist in the same universe as novels you know.

I didn't say no one should ever enjoy NYer style articles, only that the Register is better for getting everyone to the point where they can productively discuss the article. A flowery style no one will ever finish isn't as good for that.

But the Register article is from 2016, when the firm had recently been raided. The New Yorker article covers the years afterward, including how the firm managed to sell its assets to Kroll, a well-known private-eye/corporate-intel firm.

I can't speak for the average HN reader, but I honestly don't give a shit that a small cybersecurity firm I've never heard about got raided and shut down, whether it was in 2016 or 2019. I am much more interested in the story of the people who created the firm, how they managed to find success, and what led to their downfall. Such information is often not satisfactorily communicated in a news brief style.

Re: A Cybersecurity Firm’s Sharp Rise and Stunning Collapse

#26

Post by danso »

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #12

The author seems to confuse peer-to-peer file sharing networks and onion routing. The explanations in the article don't make any sense.

I didn't see any mention of onion routing. There's several references to the "Deep Web", but that's in the context of file-sharing peer-to-peer networks.

Re: A Cybersecurity Firm’s Sharp Rise and Stunning Collapse

#27

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

SilasX wrote: post #20
Ozumandias wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, people on here don't seem to understand that you read the New Yorker for narrative and literary craft, not for getting information as fast as possible.

And New Yorker article submitters don't understand that the HN crowd tends to prefer the Register style, at least for providing a focal point where everyone can get up to speed quickly for a productive discussion.

> And New Yorker article submitters don't understand that the HN crowd tends to prefer the Register style

Speak for yourself, buddy.

Re: A Cybersecurity Firm’s Sharp Rise and Stunning Collapse

#28

Post by dmix »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #27
SilasX wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And New Yorker article submitters don't understand that the HN crowd tends to prefer the Register style, at least for providing a focal point where everyone can get up to speed quickly for a productive discussion.

> And New Yorker article submitters don't understand that the HN crowd tends to prefer the Register style Speak for yourself, buddy.

No one is taking away the New Yorker article. OP merely shared a link that’s better for those who want a short form version.

Nothing wrong with having both. TLDRs will always be popular.

Re: A Cybersecurity Firm’s Sharp Rise and Stunning Collapse

#29

Post by SilasX »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #27
SilasX wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And New Yorker article submitters don't understand that the HN crowd tends to prefer the Register style, at least for providing a focal point where everyone can get up to speed quickly for a productive discussion.

> And New Yorker article submitters don't understand that the HN crowd tends to prefer the Register style Speak for yourself, buddy.

I'm speaking for the quality of discussion that happens when everyone is aware of the all the facts presented in the article, vs when everyone is mired in unproductive guesswork because they missed the critical details of the threat vector because it's wedged between a description of some boss's pursed lips and the coffee used that in that office.

Edit: And "buddy"? Really?

Re: A Cybersecurity Firm’s Sharp Rise and Stunning Collapse

#30

Post by willbw »

wildmusings wrote: post #3

Here is a proper news article for those who can do without a dozen pages of drivel about the CEO's hairdo, flying lessons, and underwear shopping: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/18/fbi_raids_cybersecu...

Some people find the details interesting. Life isn't always about processing information as quickly as possible
Post reply on HN