On: Mathematicians have found a new upper limit to the...

[enriquto]

It's an invasion of privacy. Imagine that a post appears under your name with a date/time where you are supposed to be working. If you are paid by somebody else, this may get you into trouble, or even fired.

[carbotaniuman → enriquto]

There is no privacy invasion here (that isn't even the right argument). If you think that HN misrepresents the data then sure that's a valid concern, but it's not a privacy invasion. But really, the HN date is when it got exposed initially.

[willy_k → enriquto]

You’ve definitely described an invasion of privacy, just not one perpetrated by HN.

[davnicwil → enriquto]

In fairness in such an extreme situation it seems likely there would be a conversation where you'd have the opportunity to explain.

If there weren't, well, probably you're better off?

[avgcorrection → davnicwil]

> If there weren't, well, probably you're better off?

That’s for the person to do something with or not. :) Not something that moderators should intervene in indirectly.

[chongli → davnicwil]

How do you explain if you're not aware of the policy?

[skeaker → enriquto]

Fortunately the moderation here isn't a faceless monolith and if you email them they would most likely be happy to cooperate with your concerns about this.

[sfink → enriquto]

It does suggest that an "(updated)" marker would not go amiss.

I won't explain my justification, since I'm supposed to be working right now. ;-)