The second comment recounting a apparently total recall like memory of being a ten year old boy in 1977 is fascinating. Not least because of the detail about purchasing a white loaf and butter for two pounds British. That's today's money costs. A loaf of bread in 77 cost you thruppence or 4 new pennies if your regional banks had caught up with decimalization recoinage and everyone rounds up on these occasions see the Teuro when the standard 3DM loaf of bread suddenly cost you 3 Euro the next day. Rgds jm2
Dang, The same-link post is over a year old and got 2 comments. Are you pointing this out for the former, latter, or both paragraphs stated in the FAQ?
Signed, never quite grasp the repost guidelines.
Are reposts ok?
If a story has not had significant attention in the last year or so, a small number of reposts is ok. Otherwise we bury reposts as duplicates.
Please don't delete and repost the same story. Deletion is for things that shouldn't have been submitted in the first place.
You flagged this post (Total Recall: the people who never forget) as a repeat or repost. But the FAQ for reposts allows for reposts that didn't get a lot of attention and/or are older than a year. The duplicate older post you quote didn't get a lot of attention and is older than a year.
No one flagged the current post! It was fine as a repost because the story has not had significant attention in the last year or so, as you correctly read the FAQ.
Listing "related" links is just because readers enjoy looking at old comments on the same topic. It's there to enhance the site for curious readers and there's no implicit reproach for the repost—on the contrary!
'dang didn't flag it: he posted related past articles, which he often does (such as here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36278663). If he had intended to call it out as a [dupe] he would have explicitly done so.
Yes, I've seen the [dupe] flag. However you may understand the confusion caused as the article Dang has posted is not 'related', it is the same article, i.e. a dupe. So perhaps the question now arises as to why it was posted 'without' [dupe], yes?
Although it's the same article, it's a related in the sense that the discussion happened in the past. A submission is not considered a dupe if it's been over a year since last submitted.
So Dang was re-posting the over-year-old same article as a way of contributing to this same parent article? And though the original article is technically old, and had just two comments, it is considered a related/of interest post. Have I understood?
Total recall: the people who never forget - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30391218 - Feb 2022 (2 comments)