HN Explorer

10 comments

[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 41.0 ms ] thread
pvg
Dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24364652
mehrdadn
Oh wow, thanks! Didn't realize it was already discussed.
colejohnson66
This one is a link to the ruling. That one links to a news article citing a Reuters article of which neither link to this PDF.
pvg
That's still a dupe by HN's Rules of Dupery. Otherwise everything would be on the front page all the time forever and that's impractical.
deviation
Agreed. Perform the ritual and summon the @dang for his opinion perhaps?
dang
It's a dupe because it's the same underlying story.

Generally it's probably best to have the best third-party article on a topic and link to the court ruling from the comments. A similar point came up earlier today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24366620

skissane
I don't understand why journalists discussing court cases don't link to the judgement (assuming it is available).

Or similarly, journalists who report on published scientific research but don't link to the journal article

The original is usually more accurate and interesting than the journalist's oversimplified (and sometimes even completely wrong) summary

dang
Comments moved thither. Thanks!
[deleted]
(comment deleted)