Normally I wouldn't link to meta discussion but this was such a weird borderline case that I spent over an hour trying to figure it out. Maybe that makes it interesting.
FWIW, I never clicked into this when I originally saw it because I'm not that interested in a "technical analysis", but gained interest when the other title said that the app was hacked. To me, that's worth discussing, but here that lede is a bit buried. And I now only know about it because a friend sent me the link.
I do feel there's a pattern of me reading some interesting tech news, then thinking "wait, why didn't I see this discussed on HN?", to searching for it and finding a buried/flagged HN discussion due to it being somewhat tied to politics (what isn't?)
Someone who had a flag applied to them was flagged.
Noun to verb conjugations are unofficial English. But we love verbing our words. Google has been verbed into Googling. And when someone is the target of Google we call that getting Googled.
It's again, unofficial and unwritten and unstudied American English. So don't sweat it. It's how our slang evolves. Apologies for the lack of consistency in our language!
> It's again, unofficial and unwritten and unstudied American English.
Hm? Where'd you get that impression?
It's certainly unofficial -- English has no official governing body, so essentially _all_ English is unofficial. However, zero-derived denominal verbs are quite common in even formal written English [0], are well studied [1], and aren't at all limited to American English [2].
----
[0] As seen in this very thread.
[1] It took me almost no time to find a random academic paper [1a] and two Wikipedia articles [1b][1c].
Imo it's a brand new thing so it deserves this technical analysis, the follow up also deserves its own post because of its both importance and political/security nature (government app attacked).
It would be if Google announced Gmail and there was a technical analysis and then it was hacked the same day, I would hope there would be a post for that.
Short version: it's not possible to have separate discussions in the way you describe. They would just get totally blended.
I like your Gmail analogy but I don't think it applies here. The "technical analysis" article is driven by the same political/security concerns as the "hacked" update.
Thanks for adding the little bit of meta commentary here. I think it helps to understand a bit more about how the site functions. And with this case, particular, it is a very useful timeline to help follow the discussion.
"Show HN" is a separate thing entirely - it's true that the submitter of this article was the author (which is great), but that's not enough to make a post a Show HN (https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html).
