undefined | Better HN

0 pointsthemacguffinman5y ago0 comments

Which has nothing to do with the feature discussed in this thread, which is to hide non-domain parts of the URL.

What you're referring to is the Signed Exchanges proposal.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

tyingq5y ago· 2 in thread

Splitting up your plan into discrete parts that seem relatively inert on their own isn't a new thing. ANFO is a good example.

And it's pretty easy to do this in a way that front line and low level MGMT Googlers wouldn't know.

The AMP lead, for example, has posted here, and seems credible and very competent for his own intentions. I'm not convinced he's totally aware of the intentions of his leadership chain.

themacguffinmanOP5y ago

You're literally describing a conspiracy theory and dubiously speculating on malicious intentions. That's my point.

I'm saying that it's a wacky conspiracy theory that Google is hiding the non-domain parts of the URL to dominate the internet, and you come back with:

What if Google leadership was conspiring in such a secret, surreptitious way that middle management and possibly even the AMP lead doesn't know what's going on? What if this is just a small part of some grand plan?!

Is the treachery of domain-only URLs so deep that even Apple didn't realize they were carrying out pieces of Google's ultimate plan?

tyingq5y ago

Fair enough, yes, that's a bit sensationalized version of what I said. And, despite being a generally rational person, I don't find it far fetched.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse