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

News Minimalist – Only significant news

newsminimalist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 232 posts

Re: News Minimalist – Only significant news

#161

Post by laputan_machine »

This is a good idea but I already disagree with the output. Of the top stories, the majority of them are "could" and "probably" -- that isn't news.

News is something that either has happened or is going to happen. If it might not happen, then it's speculation, that isn't news (imo).

e.g.

- "US Braces for potential recession" -- no, the REAL story is the interest rate is going up

- "US Debt default could happen by 2023" -- pure speculation, not news

- "WEF predicts jobs disrupted" -- speculation, not news

And also I echo the other comments about it being overly US-centric, but that's par for the course.

Edit: I should also say, good job! It's a nice website

Re: News Minimalist – Only significant news

#163

Post by jesusofnazarath »

nextaccountic wrote: post #58
yakhinvadim wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, good point, just created it: https://rss.beehiiv.com/feeds/4aF2pGVAEN.xml I have no control over it, but let me know if there are any problems with it — I'll see what I can do.

Could you make a feed that posts one news article per post, rather than one day per post? That is, for a day with 5 news, post 5 times on the feed, one for each. I'm using a RSS reader that only shows the title of each day (and not the body of the post), and right now it's showing only > Tuesday, May 2 — 4 significant news > Only significant news. All signal, no noise. But I would like to be able to skim all headline…

[dead]

Re: News Minimalist – Only significant news

#164

Post by mk89 »

This is a great idea, the only issue is that in many cases "news" or "what I want to read" can be very subjective.

If I want to know what's happening from an authoritative source I go straight to Reuters and that's it.

However, there is also objectively less interesting news out there that I might want to click and read, and reducing the score to 3,4,5... (?) will give me a ton of crappy news which I don't want to read, and then I am back to square 1: google news or similar.

You need to provide a better way to select or filter out, otherwise you'll only get proxies of Reuters and similar, which we probably already go to during the day.

Re: News Minimalist – Only significant news

#165

Post by yakhinvadim »

yakhinvadim wrote: post #3

Hey HN, author of the site here! Happy to answer any questions. (below is the project description I used when posted about it on Reddit) The problem I have with most news sites is that I can't read only important news: an article about a virus outbreak is followed by some celebrity gossip or another smartphone release. But even on sites that focus on important events articles are posted every day and there are always…

Just published today's issue: https://newsletter.newsminimalist.com/p/wednesday-may-3-3-si...

I bet spam algorithms didn't like that I sent email to 30 people yesterday and 900 people today. Good problem to have :) Please check your spam folder if you don't see today's issue in inbox.

Re: News Minimalist – Only significant news

#166

Post by nunuvit »

lawn wrote: post #155
ninkendo wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that .com is a de facto US TLD… as an American it doesn’t strike me as odd that a .com site is implicitly USA centric any more than a US news channel or US newspaper. (Yes I know .us exists but it’s not as common as .com) If it was newsminimalist.co.uk I don’t think anyone would really complain that it’s UK-specific news, right?

No, .com isn't implicitly USA centric, it's just the internet default. You mention .us yourself but then dismiss it because reasons. Your American bias is just shining through, where of course you're not surprised.

> .com isn't implicitly USA centric, it's just the internet default

Those both mean the exact same thing in this context. Genuinely interesting that you're not the only person who understood it a different way and suggested "default" instead. Neither would stand up to such pedantic scrutiny if you want to argue that one of them is wrong.

In such a short sentence about a topic that everyone here surely knows about, the words only reference the relevant aspect of the underlying information. You can't know if they have the wrong or right view without more information.

Re: News Minimalist – Only significant news

#167

Post by strunz »

yakhinvadim wrote: post #3

Hey HN, author of the site here! Happy to answer any questions. (below is the project description I used when posted about it on Reddit) The problem I have with most news sites is that I can't read only important news: an article about a virus outbreak is followed by some celebrity gossip or another smartphone release. But even on sites that focus on important events articles are posted every day and there are always…

I'm sure you're aware, but I don't see a comment - the site is down.

Re: News Minimalist – Only significant news

#168

Post by ap916 »

This is really cool, and I can see myself using it over the long term.

I can't help but wonder that with the rise of tools like this, news agencies might start publishing exploding news to make it seem more important. It'll be interesting to see how the model works with that kind of data and if it's able to figure that out.

Re: News Minimalist – Only significant news

#169

Post by elektor »

mcjiggerlog wrote: post #88
yakhinvadim wrote: post #3

Hey HN, author of the site here! Happy to answer any questions. (below is the project description I used when posted about it on Reddit) The problem I have with most news sites is that I can't read only important news: an article about a virus outbreak is followed by some celebrity gossip or another smartphone release. But even on sites that focus on important events articles are posted every day and there are always…

Great idea and well executed - well done! I actually created a site - https://detoxed.news - with a very similar philosophy a while back, though with a much simpler implementation. It periodically scrapes Wikipedia's Current Events Portal ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events ) and presents that information in a nicer format. I think there's definitely a sweet spot where you keep well-informed about c…

The problem with using Wikipedia as a news source is that it focuses on really flashy topics, like murder and armed conflicts. Looking at the headlines of detoxed.news confirms this:

1) Flood in Rwanda kills 109 people 2) Sudan War 3) Australia evacuation from Sudan 4) Seizing of an oil tanker

None of these headlines keep me particularly informed and are actually a more potent version of the 24 hours new cycle

Re: News Minimalist – Only significant news

#170

Post by nunuvit »

wohfab wrote: post #149
ninkendo wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that .com is a de facto US TLD… as an American it doesn’t strike me as odd that a .com site is implicitly USA centric any more than a US news channel or US newspaper. (Yes I know .us exists but it’s not as common as .com) If it was newsminimalist.co.uk I don’t think anyone would really complain that it’s UK-specific news, right?

Obviously it doesn't strike you as odd as an American. I'd say, .com is just the default. If you go location/topic specific, you go with another TLD. To the 130 million (domainnamestat.com) domains, registered in the US, there are like 500 million domains, registered somewhere else. I couldn't find any numbers for how many of those are .com and how many aren't, but you cannot just ignore those. Just because most doma…

> I'd say, .com is just the default

That means the exact same thing in this context. Genuinely interesting that you're not the only person who understood it a different way and suggested "default" instead. Neither would stand up to such pedantic scrutiny if you want to argue that one of them is wrong.

In such a short sentence about a topic that everyone here surely knows about, the words only reference the relevant aspect of the underlying information. You can't know if they have the wrong or right view without more information.

Post reply on HN