HN Explorer

24 comments

[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 75.1 ms ] thread
airstrike
The current link is blogspam for the original article by The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/24/emperor-charle...
tomschwiha
Is it actually spam? More looks like a manually curated quote / link.
Tainnor
I agree that posting the original link is probably more useful, but I find it very odd to call Bruce Schneier's blog "spam".
capableweb
I don't think parent is calling the entire blog spam, there is definitely good, original content on the blog itself. But this particular article is what's called "blogspam":

> A blog where the author paraphrases or copies from the original article/webpage in an attempt to increase his or her own traffic. This becomes a waste of the reader's time forcing them to click through the blog to get to the actual article. Often submitted to sites like Digg or Reddit.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

Tainnor
The relevant part is "to incrase his or her own traffic".

Bruce Schneier is one of the most famous cryptography researchers. I doubt he needs more traffic. Intent matters, and when he reposts and summarises a Guardian article, this is probably done for the benefit of readers who already follow his blog.

airstrike
IMHO not including the words "The Guardian" in his TL;DR is what makes it spammy
dmix
I found the summary useful. I read the whole Guardian article and Bruce highlighted the really interesting part. The only other question was: what's in the letter?

The answer is pretty boring, just a standard communique between two leaders during a conflict and talk about a previously unknown murder plot (which was just a rumour). The meat is the cipher.

adrianmonk
> is blogspam

It is, and it isn't.

Functionally, for the reader of Hacker News, it has the same form of and effect as blogspam. It's a blog entry, it doesn't add much, and it just links to the real content.

But presumably it lacks the intent of blogspam. Bruce Schneier's blog has quality original content, and nobody is trying to game the system. Probably Schneier just wrote this blog entry to bring an interesting story to his readers' attention, and one of them posted it here.

namkt
He does that all the time where he posts a link and quotes one or two paragraphs. It's also meant for the fanbase to comment on the post.
narag
FWIW, there has never been a Charles V of Spain. Article referes to Charles I of Spain and V of elsewhere. This guy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_V,_Holy_Roman_Emperor

Our last ruler of that name was Charles IV, we're still one Charles short:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_IV_of_Spain_and_His_Fa...

herodotus
Good call. Thanks for pointing this out. The original article in The Guardian does not make the same mistake.
chrisbaker98
This is the same reason why some Scottish people object to the late Queen Elizabeth being called "the Second".
dboreham
Some?

Edit: it's just wrong is what people object to. She was the first Elizabeth of the country. Same thing for James VI (not James I which was a different dude).

Seemingly the government agreed because mailboxes in Scotland don't have EIIR : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillar_Box_War

chrisbaker98
James isn't a good example because he was and still is commonly referred to as "James VI and I". I learnt that in primary school.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_VI_and_I

Likewise for his son, James VII and II.

AFAIK Elizabeth is the only post-Union monarch who took an "England only" regnal number that didn't gel with Scottish history.

chrisbaker98
Too late to edit but I realised there's another one: William "IV" was only the third William to rule Scotland.

I guess we're in for another round of this when Charles dies and William the "fifth" takes the throne, although at the rate we're going Scotland might be a republic by then.

Ruq
5 Centuries is a long time for a cipher to be un-cracked. One could say it did a better job than modern ciphers!
xchip
You won the comments price!