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

Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious

shkspr.mobi

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 282 posts

Re: Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious

#21

Post by ajuc »

Zhyl wrote: post #6
njsubedi wrote: post #2

>The whole investigation took me 5 minutes. A Web search, a few clicks, and some ctrl+f’ing. Am I the only one who thinks the last phrase sounds weird? I might be used to reading lots of articles that sensor words, but couldn't help reading it as "control-fucking". (Edit: uncensored)

I think Ctrl+F seems to be more popular than 'grepping' these days, although I would very much be in favour of bringing 'grepping' back.

Well it depends which one you do. Nobody greps PDFs. And even if you have the article as plain text file you woulnd't grep to see nearby text, you would use your editor's equivalent of ctrl+f.

ctrl+f is about finding the context of something

grep is about filtering out the irrelevant information

Linux utility "less" which is the best tool to browse logs ever has both ctrl+f equivalent(/), and grep equivalent (&) and both are useful.

Re: Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious

#22

Post by edent »

Trufa wrote: post #14

Completely tangential, I never understand why people use URI instead of URL. He obviously means URL and goes an abstraction lower. You could also say without the corresponding internet uniquely scheme or whatever. Sorry for the rant. But I am missing something?

I'm the author of the blog post. It's a good question but, yes, you are missing something. Mostly me being an idiot.

https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2020/03/it-is-spelled-url/

I usually spell it upper-u upper-r lower-L specifically to annoy both sides of the argument.

(I'm not sure why the submitter substituted the l for I.)

Re: Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious

#23

Post by vezycash »

londons_explore wrote: post #12

Site down... Shows ReCAPTCHA in an infinite loop...

>Site down... Shows ReCAPTCHA

I suppose this is cloudflare + their new captcha provider. This behavior is annoying / suspicious. They know the site is down, yet make people solve captcha repeatedly before finally telling them that the site is down.

Re: Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious

#24

Post by edent »

raxxorrax wrote: post #10

Judge me all you want, but I would have clicked on "dirty hippy vibes"... Honestly, I don't really believe in ubiquitous misinformation being as a large problem as it is made out to be. Everyone arguing for more content regulation had their own motivations or was in some kind of panic. There will always be people misinformed on the net. Doesn't mean I want a babysitter cleaning everything up, even if I thought they w…

I'm not sure where you got the impression that I wanted people to clean up misinformation from the web. That certainly wasn't my intent.

Perhaps you and I move in different social circles - but I get a lot of forwarded "claims" on WhatsApp and Twitter. Well-meaning people who see an image with some text on it and send it to their friends & family.

My blog post is mostly aimed at them - showing how easy it can be to check sources.

Re: Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious

#26

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

_Microft wrote: post #20
ben509 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Firefox the / key is bound to quick find, so it's there in spirit.

Firefox also allows to search without bringing up the search bar first by setting "accessibility.typeaheadfind" in "about:config" to true. Reducing the timeout for the search bar to disappear after the last keypress is very useful as well. This is hidden behind "accessibility.typeaheadfind.timeout". Caveat: is messes with pages that use normal letters as keyboard inputs, like WASD as movement keys. One might need to…

I use Firefox developer edition - I assume that's set up by default. Though I've learned to work around it, it has driven me mad for so long - I didn't know you could turn it off! Finally, it's fixed! Thank you!

Re: Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious

#27

Post by mmcgaha »

raxxorrax wrote: post #10

Judge me all you want, but I would have clicked on "dirty hippy vibes"... Honestly, I don't really believe in ubiquitous misinformation being as a large problem as it is made out to be. Everyone arguing for more content regulation had their own motivations or was in some kind of panic. There will always be people misinformed on the net. Doesn't mean I want a babysitter cleaning everything up, even if I thought they w…

I feel that the whole misinformation thing is overblown too. Like you, I do not have a facebook account, so maybe our s/n ratio is better than most.

I used to get a lot of chain emails that had misleading or exaggerated information. I suspect that channel dried up and moved to facebook.

Re: Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious

#28

Post by gruez »

noman-land wrote: post #19
dsun179 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not think so. Most of my ipfs bookmarks from 2 years ago are offline now, everything gone because no peer has the content.

FileCoin just recently launched and it aims to fix this exact problem.

How does adding crypto fix this problem? I presume it's to incentivize peers into retaining and serving the content, but who's going to pay? The author? The viewer? How is either going to work for long tail content that's been abandoned by the author?

Re: Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious

#29

Post by specialist »

anonymfus wrote: post #13
njsubedi wrote: post #2

>The whole investigation took me 5 minutes. A Web search, a few clicks, and some ctrl+f’ing. Am I the only one who thinks the last phrase sounds weird? I might be used to reading lots of articles that sensor words, but couldn't help reading it as "control-fucking". (Edit: uncensored)

I read what you wrote as "control-finding".

I misread it as 'ctrl-fsck'.

Re: Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious

#30

Post by zeveb »

Trufa wrote: post #14

Completely tangential, I never understand why people use URI instead of URL. He obviously means URL and goes an abstraction lower. You could also say without the corresponding internet uniquely scheme or whatever. Sorry for the rant. But I am missing something?

In the general case of an old newspaper which may not be scanned and online, a URI (i.e., an indentifier) is called for; in the case of an old newspaper which has been scanned, a URL is called for.

The distinction is that an identifier identifies a resource; a locator states where it is located.

'My grand-father's diary, 4 July 1930' is a resource identifier (but not a URI); urn:isbn:0-486-27557-4 is a URI, but not a URL; https://news.ycombinator.com/ is a URL.

Post reply on HN