It seems like the harvested from a permalink to a comment (the link you get from clicking the "x minutes ago" time) rather than the entire comment section and later what I found was the whole comment section here that gave better context for my query.
Wouldn't that just be because OP's comment appeared on the article, which was posted ~1h ago, and the Google result link is to the article, not the comment directly, hence has the earlier timestamp?
For context, when the parent comment was posted, the link to the announcements mailing list archive (which was the original link for this article, it seems to have been changed to the blog post since then) was timing out. It's true that the parent comment contains no extra information at all, but that's only if you managed to open the mailing list link.
The original link barely made any sense and many of those comments were comments without the useful context. The root cause here is the iffy submission, not the outdated comments or the change to a more meaningful link.
My guess is the headline used to be a question. Either that, or the parent accidentally clicked the wrong reply link, or (unlikely) the comment got assigned to the wrong parent by the HN software.
Thanks: I too visited this comments page specifically looking for clarification! Yep, saved me some time and a little head-scratching since I couldn't glean the background info on Internet.org by reading this site.
This makes a lot of sense and goes a long way to explain the time discrepancies. It's sad that I had to scroll down the page and find these comments buried at the bottom when they should be at the top.
reply