If you can upload a custom file to a domain/subdomain, bluesky social (Jack Dorsey's new twitter) uses it to verify you are the owner of the domain. Chaz uploaded his custom file to their Amazon s3 bucket and now since he was the first one to do it, his account is now associated with Amazon S3.
Hacker News discourages "editorializing" the title, which means there's incentive to repeat what's being linked to exactly.
Most of the time, it's a good thing, but in cases like this is where this falls over.
(You can also see this in the other direction parent comment, for what it's worth, "Jack Dorsey's New Twitter" isn't really accurate, as far as I'm concerned. It is more informative overall, though.)
Describing or at least providing context is not editorializing. I don't know how this "discouragement" is phrased, but it should instead encourage (if not require) that titles mean something to a general audience (at least as represented by HN's users).
I am routinely down-modded and even banned for merely asking for more-descriptive titles. It's anti-user, anti-community, anti-usefulness, and douchey.
All we needed here was, at least, "Bluesky Social allows domain hijacking" or whatever it's actually doing (which I don't have a grasp of, even after following the cryptic link).
Or even just "This guy is now all of S3 on Bluesky Social." But that wouldn't be as click-baity, would it?
In this case, I agree something more descriptive would have been helpful. Even the comments have been mysterious, given the linked web site only returns "429 Too Many Requests".
FWIW it seemed obvious to me. I think a minority of people who play in this space can’t conceptualize others’ understandable ignorance of the norms and axioms.
That's the whole point. Chaz uploaded the file to his own s3 bucket. He is one of thousands (millions?) of people who could have done the same thing with their own s3 bucket. He was the first.
