Hacker News Reader

Comment by pvg | Hacker News Reader

This is already a comment on the site, in the relevant thread. Seems a little meta as a post.

For what it's worth, in the general case, I think you're right. The only thing that makes this case different to me is that the one comment CF's CEO has decided to make on HN takes a potshot at Google, which is newsworthy --- but if we took every notable comment on HN and put it on the front page, that's all the front page would be.

Right, I'm mostly whining about the method - link to grumpy mid-thread comment, title that misleads about the intent of the post, etc.

The thing itself seems somewhat newsworthy but personally, I'd rather hear the CF people defend the TLS-MITM-as-service idea itself and get yelled at for that. The fact they're being weaselly and insufficiently contrite seems secondary.

That makes sense. I'm much less interested in the phenomenon of CF-as-global-TLS-MITM than I am in how responsible they are being with the position they've accrued, and handling vulnerabilities like this is a big part of that. So the fact that CF is in a spat with Google is a big deal to me, but I understand that's not the case for everyone.

It's sort of an incredible exchange. Seems worth seeing on its own.

It might be but so are videos of cars crashing and they're not good HN material. This is essentially drama-fishing in stuff that's already on the site and pushing a past (but barely day-old) covered story to the front page again.

Whats happening is CF playing "never let a good crisis go to waste" against Google. Calling them out on it is not only appropriate but crucial given their past holier than thou attitude.

This isn't 'calling them out'. It's re-posting a single comment for rage-views. If you want to call them out, write something about it, quote Tavis Ormandy if you want, add whatever commentary you think is appropriate and post that. There is nothing in this that 'gratifies intellectual curiosity', it's just cheap incitement. I don't want to call it reddit-like since most sane subreddits sensibly discourage it as well.

I think the content is very relevant to HN. For better or worse, CF has essentially become a significant part of the global internet infrastructure. We should be aware that the CloudFlare CEO is trying to shift blame for their mess. A mess that impacts a staggering portion of the internet.

With regards to the fact that it's part of another thread, I don't think that matters too much. If it were an update present as a separate document it would pass muster. There've been several open letters, and responses to such, and further responses again, etc that have been posted to HN. Furthermore there's no guarantee that someone reading the original thread will see this exchange; I read the thread after the exchange happened and missed it.

This is significant enough to be posted as its own item, that it's part of another, ongoing thread shouldn't take precedence over this significance.

Yeah, I don't think this is the way to do it, see my other comment.

Strange, it used to be not possible to submit HN comments. When I asked him about it, dang specifically said that he doesn't want those.

Speaking of that, as of now on the front page:

    23. 	Announcing the first SHA-1 collision (googleblog.com)
        	2882 points by pfg 1 day ago | flag | hide | 488 comments

second page:

    37. 	Cloudflare Reverse Proxies Are Dumping Uninitialized Memory (chromium.org)
        	3168 points by tptacek 1 day ago | flag | hide | 979 comments

It says "1 day ago" for both now, but the second story came later. So how come it ranks so much lower, having even more votes? Is that HN penalizing comment count, or users flagging it? If it got flagged, would anyone have a problem with removing those flags and removing flagging privileges from said users?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com