2 hours ago
Cool! I’ve been using this bookmark for years:
2 minutes ago
If you want more than that you can use HN's BigQuery free dataset. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40644563
an hour ago
Which is denser on information, faster to read, more accessible and works without javascript.
I did whitelist the orangecrumb domain for JS temporarily though. Does look neat, but not the the sort of interface I'm into.
4 hours ago
> Discover Wikipedia articles popular on Hacker News
Wikipedia articles _and YT videos_.
Amazing result, very precious, just skimming in it for a few minutes was immensely enriching.
5 hours ago
Other modes worth trying: "Mailing Lists", "Research Papers"
3 hours ago
Looks great, especially on mobile, congrats!
5 hours ago
Nicely done! Would be interesting to sort by upvotes and/or comment count as well.
an hour ago
5 stars, delved
2 hours ago
Wikepedia, the most untrustworthy source ever, cases and cases of people who gained access to the article and completely changed it with fake information:
1. Assassin's Creed video game: A guy changed Japanese history by introducing a black samurai. The whole dramas was so bad that Janapense officials got involved, and one of the reasons Ubisoft Studio which was already broke due to DEI, went even more bankrupt.
2. A lawyer changed specific laws on Wikipedia and waited, as expected, judges were caught using the "fabricated law" against real cases with real consequences.
I could go on and on, but hey, you do you :)
an hour ago
I was wondering what the heck ① was all about and found this site in a search that seems to have a bone to pick with Thomas Lockley. https://japanese-with-naoto.com/2024/07/10/perfidious-histor... https://japanese-with-naoto.com/2024/05/29/disappointment-in...
First I've heard about this controversy, and I've never played the game, but I could see if a historian was a cite for something and they were saying different things in japanese and english, that the english wikipedia would end up citing inaccurate things.
There's been problems in the past with the deletionist faction on wikipedia or moderators abusing small fiefdoms - some of which has even ended up here on HN, but in this case, wikipedia just citing information from a supposedly reputable source seems to be wikipedia operating as intended.
an hour ago
A technology that is used up to a million times a day is bad, here's the proof, two times it has failed:
an hour ago
A tale as old as time. I don't just want to know the instances of harm, I want to know how representative they are supposed to be. And I think people who have thought through the latter question aren't the types to do the former.
7 minutes ago
Yeah, and all search engines can index a website with fake info to the top of the results for a question, so that makes search engines a terrible tool for looking up information. /s
Wikipedia never was a definitive or authoritative source on anything, that is by design, that is on the official guidelines. You can't cite Wikipedia on Wikipedia, you must provide sources for information, if no sources exist for an excerpt of an article then it must be tagged as citation needed.
17 minutes ago
Yaaaayy - MORE Commiepedia!