The HN rules are that paywalled content can be posted only if it's trivially bypassable via a free tool. The NYTimes links work on fresh IP addresses as part of a free allowance for new readers, which is why the proxy-based archive website archive.today is able to get through. I'm not a big fan of this being allowed, but there is some thought to it at least, they aren't just allowing anything.
It is a shame that the free tool of choice is a site that put a DDOS attack in its captcha. So my options are not read the article or... not read the article. Nice.
That’d be sensible reasoning IF the articles were already posted with a paywall-free url, but they are not, so as it stands these are essentially just ads.
IIRC the staff will usually intentionally elevate bypass links to the top whenever they see them posted in the comments. (And when a link has already been posted they tend to sink comments like yours that complain without providing a link, lol)
Again, why not require the bypassed link right from the gate, then? You’d sidestep people complaining about it and wouldn’t little the comment section with people posting alternative links or asking for them.
NYT is the only one profiting getting free publicity for their subscription service here.
I speculated in a different reply that it’s to reduce dups. Two people could post the same article, but if they used different paywall-bypassers they would appear as separate submissions.
My understanding is you’re not supposed to post paywall-cutting links but it’s ok to post them as comments. Perhaps to prevent dupes? Or perhaps there is no such rule.
Seems par for the course since our adaptive immune system is based on an old viral/transposon recombinase.
Transposon Molecular Domestication and the Evolution of the RAG Recombinase
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6494689/
Here is the actual study:
Escape of the BC200 gene to a human poxvirus reveals its persistent transposition in primates
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aeh3441
Is VDJ recombination based on viruses or transposons?
It's the first time I hear this. Can't yet say much about it until I can verify that.
This brings a whole new meaning to sores. Has this infection been previously identified? Edit: Yes https://www.cdc.gov/molluscum-contagiosum/about/index.html
I guess it just hadn't been linked to human genes before.
This must be microbe awareness day.
Earlier iirc someone posted
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/cancer-infections-9.7361622
I thought viruses weren't considered to be microbes. Was I mistaken? Is there a broader category that includes things like bacteria and also viruses?
Can't read through the paywall
https://archive.ph/PpKtR
Ah yes, the NYT paywall.
Here you go everyone: https://archive.ph/PpKtR
Can we please start banning articles with paywalls from being posted at all?
If I cannot read without a subscription (or a damn paywall removed), it shouldn’t be posted here. This is tantamount to posting an ad for an NYT sub.
The HN rules are that paywalled content can be posted only if it's trivially bypassable via a free tool. The NYTimes links work on fresh IP addresses as part of a free allowance for new readers, which is why the proxy-based archive website archive.today is able to get through. I'm not a big fan of this being allowed, but there is some thought to it at least, they aren't just allowing anything.
It is a shame that the free tool of choice is a site that put a DDOS attack in its captcha. So my options are not read the article or... not read the article. Nice.
You say that like "commit a felony to read the article" isn't a valid option (/s).
That’d be sensible reasoning IF the articles were already posted with a paywall-free url, but they are not, so as it stands these are essentially just ads.
IIRC the staff will usually intentionally elevate bypass links to the top whenever they see them posted in the comments. (And when a link has already been posted they tend to sink comments like yours that complain without providing a link, lol)
Again, why not require the bypassed link right from the gate, then? You’d sidestep people complaining about it and wouldn’t little the comment section with people posting alternative links or asking for them.
NYT is the only one profiting getting free publicity for their subscription service here.
Did you create three accounts just to reply? And if so why not stick to just one?
I speculated in a different reply that it’s to reduce dups. Two people could post the same article, but if they used different paywall-bypassers they would appear as separate submissions.
My understanding is you’re not supposed to post paywall-cutting links but it’s ok to post them as comments. Perhaps to prevent dupes? Or perhaps there is no such rule.
There was no theft involved. "Genes" are not "owned".
If the virus didn't evolve the gene on its own, then "stole" seems like a fair description of how it got it.
You wouldn't download a gene, would you?