This is actually funnier then the title leads you to believe.
I'd archive BBC though, fuck those assholes.
It took three days to pump millions of litres of water out of the dam, after Rajesh Vishwas dropped the device while taking a selfie.
By the time it was found, the phone was too water-logged to work.
Mr Vishwas claimed it contained sensitive government data and needed retrieving, but he has been accused of misusing his position.
The food inspector dropped his Samsung phone, worth about $1,200 (100,000 rupees), into Kherkatta Dam, in the central Indian state of Chhattisgarh, on Sunday.
After local divers failed to find it, he paid for a diesel pump to be brought in, Mr Vishwas said in a video statement quoted in Indian media.
He said he had verbal permission from an official to drain "some water into a nearby canal", adding that the official said it "would in fact benefit the farmers who would have more water".
Mr Vishwas has denied misusing his position, and said that the water he drained was from the overflow section of the dam and "not in usable condition".
One of the main reasons why I don´t archive links is because I like the source URL to be visible. Another reason is that I don´t find it such a big deal directly visiting the BBC, CNN, etc.
I understand, but that has not been my experience with the BBC and other major big news sites, they don't usually pull articles down. Sure there are exceptions, I understand that too, but in my experience I have only seen that very seldom.
I'm not sure why he said "pull down articles". They make subtle changes to the article or headline more than straight pulling them down. Shadow edits, with no "this article has been updated" text. And no they don't usually do it. Most articles aren't that important. We're talking about protection for the exceptions. It's insurance.
not just removals, they also do edits, especially the bigger guys after we caught them doing the removing. The bigger concern these days are the stealth edits.
This is actually funnier then the title leads you to believe.
I'd archive BBC though, fuck those assholes.
His excuses and reasoning are hilarious.
One of the main reasons why I don´t archive links is because I like the source URL to be visible. Another reason is that I don´t find it such a big deal directly visiting the BBC, CNN, etc.
we archive it, because of how fast they pull down articles when we link to them if they break their narrative too bad.
I understand, but that has not been my experience with the BBC and other major big news sites, they don't usually pull articles down. Sure there are exceptions, I understand that too, but in my experience I have only seen that very seldom.
I'm not sure why he said "pull down articles". They make subtle changes to the article or headline more than straight pulling them down. Shadow edits, with no "this article has been updated" text. And no they don't usually do it. Most articles aren't that important. We're talking about protection for the exceptions. It's insurance.
not just removals, they also do edits, especially the bigger guys after we caught them doing the removing. The bigger concern these days are the stealth edits.