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

HTTPS on NYTimes.com

open.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–167 of 167 posts

Re: HTTPS on NYTimes.com

#161

Post by fjdlwlv »

erelde wrote: post #141
CountSessine wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very interesting. That's good to know - thank you. I was going to get a subscription for the first time starting in February. I'll have to reconsider that.

I've subscribed via the Play Store, canceling is easier than buying an app, no password, no checking. In the "My Apps & Games" menu > "Subscriptions" > "NYT Digital Access" > "Manage Subscription" > "Cancel" > "Confirm".

Using a trusted payment provider with good reputation is the solution to this quagmire... If there is one for your product of interest

Re: HTTPS on NYTimes.com

#162

Post by rocky1138 »

kelnos wrote: post #132
akubera wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, it shouldn't matter. A trailing dot in a hostname signifies a fully-qualified domain name, rather than a relative domain name. Without the dot the router's dns service could technically return 'cbc.ca.some.othersite.net.' as the FQDN. For those interested, learn more at: http://www.dns-sd.org/trailingdotsindomainnames.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fully_qualified_domain_name

They meant the period in the middle (as in, "can you type the full thing, including the period in the middle, with one hand?"). I read it the same way as you did, initially.

I did, too, and I was the original replyer (is that a word?). But, if you visit cbc.ca once, you can do it with one hand in the future as it's the first option in the autocomplete dropdown.

Re: HTTPS on NYTimes.com

#163

Post by caf »

fjdlwlv wrote: post #160
caf wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Insurance is another industry with the same inverted pricing structure.

What? Your prices go up every year? I've never seen that.

Yes (although I should clarify that I'm referring to car / house / contents insurance here). Typically the premium offered at renewal time will increase every year, but if you come in as a new customer you can get a substantially lower premium.

Re: HTTPS on NYTimes.com

#164

Post by GCA10 »

fjdlwlv wrote: post #159
GCA10 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Echoes of Comcast ... the NYT is constantly promoting 50% off the posted rates for new subscribers, without ever offering such terms to existing customers. But if you're a "frustrated" long-time customer who's on the verge of canceling, then suddenly the 50% discount is rolled out. In most other industries, loyal customers get better treatment. Or it's the same deal for everyone. These sorts of inverted pricing struc…

In no industry to loyal customers get loss-leader pricing indefinitely. If you've ever gotten the discount once, you aren't treated worse than new customers.

If we get only one chance to be a "new customer," then it would be a reasonably fair system. But most of these churn-inducing systems are run in such a way that the Customer Acquisition Teams are quite willing to book you at the new customer rate, again and again.

The internal incentives (worth an entirely separate post) reward phone reps disproportionately for heroic "saves" of accounts that were about to quit. The big promotion within these call centers is to get to work on the Customer Rescue team.

I don't know why the finance guys haven't figured out that they are rotting out their core revenue by doing this.

Re: HTTPS on NYTimes.com

#165

Post by Fnoord »

snowwrestler wrote: post #120
AndrewUnmuted wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Intercept uses HTTPS.

So does Quartz. Those sites are, technologically speaking, glorified blogs--not comparable to a major paper like the Times or Post.

'Glorified blog'? The only big difference I can tell is that those 'glorified blogs' are not being printed on real paper. I'm not sure how that makes those newspaper who also have a 'glorified blog' anything more or less than that (plus a physical paper). None of this tells us anything about the quality of the 'glorified blog'.

Re: HTTPS on NYTimes.com

#166

Post by TurningCanadian »

semiquaver wrote: post #35
TurningCanadian wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And your session cookie..

Session cookies are transmitted as headers which are protected by HTTPS.

Sorry, I meant that as an additional reply to

"If so, this change amounts to not protecting user privacy as much as insisting that only the NYT can monetize their users' privacy."

The cookie is now hidden from the MITM. Before, not only could they see what pages you see, but they could login as you.

Re: HTTPS on NYTimes.com

#167

Post by snowwrestler »

Fnoord wrote: post #165
snowwrestler wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So does Quartz. Those sites are, technologically speaking, glorified blogs--not comparable to a major paper like the Times or Post.

'Glorified blog'? The only big difference I can tell is that those 'glorified blogs' are not being printed on real paper. I'm not sure how that makes those newspaper who also have a 'glorified blog' anything more or less than that (plus a physical paper). None of this tells us anything about the quality of the 'glorified blog'.

That's why I said technologically speaking.

The Intercept and Quartz each only publish a few articles per day. Each runs entirely on a single instance of Wordpress. Each covers only a few topics. Each has only a few templates, and simple ad inventory, if any.

A paper like the New York Times publishes many hundreds of stories every day, on almost every topic you can think of. They publish to wide variety of platforms, including print. They have a high volume of widely varying ad inventory. They have legacy content going back decades, in all sorts of legacy formats, perhaps even sitting in old CMS instances on separate servers.

TECHNOLOGICALLY SPEAKING, they are much more complex. Therefore transitioning to HTTPS is more difficult.

None of this is a commentary on the quality or social/cultural value of their content.

Post reply on HN