It calls out a bogus claim. The actual topic is diluted and deemphasized if the authors make bogus claims. So the distraction is on them, not on HN commenters.
One could also be a bit more compassionate and just realize that people make mistakes or just don't have every line on their website memorized if they decide one day to just share a YouTube video.
I doubt they are actively trying to trick people into letting down their "adblocker" guard so they can retarget them with advertising...
"Perfect is the enemy of good" really applies here.
Someone is aware of the issue of online tracking and tries their best to get rid of all of these things (web fonts, analytics,...) and even states their intent "No tracking". One day they make a small mistake and don't realize that sharing a YouTube link on their website drops a cookie and immediatelly all the good they are trying to do is forgotten.
This absolutely does not relate at all to me. I don't make extraordinary claims so I am not bound to provide extraordinary evidence. So your "I hope you never make mistakes" is irrelevant or, even worse, arguing in bad faith.
You can spin it any way you like. Claims should be backed and checked, else credibility flies out the window. I don't get how that's not glaringly obvious.
You pointing out a minor mistake that has zero implications doesn’t provide any value. It may feel good to you pointing out mistakes others made, but especially in this case it doesn’t matter. It’s not important.
And you seem to read way too much into this mistake, promptly distrusting all the content they ever made or wrote.
Next time you make a mistake, I hope people around you will treat you the same way you treat other people, let’s find out if you like that.
> It does matter, it is important. Making such a mistake calls into question if they don't have other, more serious, mistakes in their actual articles.
This shows such black-and-white thinking, thinking in absolutes that doesn't take in account, the context and circumstances.
To me it shows a rigid mind that can't perceive nuance, and think / reason about topics in a particular context.
Minor mistakes are often just that: minor mistakes. If this was an error in a scientific paper or news article, your stance may have had more merit. But that's not the context here at all.
> I don't make extraordinary claims so I am not bound to provide any extraordinary evidence. They do make an extraordinary claim.
A blog claiming not to track you isn't an 'extraordinary claim' by any definition. So that's a mistake on your part, so I can't take anything you say seriously anymore, by your own definition.
Although I feel this is yet another disingenuous question, mostly referencing my own reference, this post is about the people behind Hundred Rabbits, what they make and how they live.
This is noteworthy because it’s 180 degrees opposite from how most HN people live and what they do.
Only partly disingenuous, since I think this subject is a bit more complicated than just going off grid. So yes, the subject is this rabbits group, but I think the overall question about how individuals can live without society is not obvious. These groups couldn't do what they do without society producing these goods. Even if they are living minimally, they can never fully detach.
It takes industry of a certain complexity to fab semiconductors, and micro electronics. Once the replacement stock is depleted - there goes computing ...
... could a bunch of self organized comunes such as these ever replicate such industry?
It is peculiar no self-standing group such as this has - AFAIK - attempted such a thing. Why don't they start there?
I feel it’s such a “I am very smart gotcha” comment that isn’t helpful in any way.
It distracts from the actual topic.