
Seagate wants to push huge 16TB HDD out the door in next 18 months - bootload
https://arstechnica.co.uk/gadgets/2017/01/seagate-16tb-hard-drive/
======
grzm
Dupe:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13499641](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13499641)

~~~
bootload
Technically a dupe would be visible here:
[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Seagate%20wants%20to%20push%20...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Seagate%20wants%20to%20push%20huge%2016TB%20HDD%20out%20the%20door%20in%20next%2018%20months&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=story&storyText=false&prefix&page=0)
different author, different source. I have a personal preference for
Arstechnica because they give more technical details.

~~~
grzm
Understood. The article likely is substantially the same as the Techspot piece
that was submitted earlier. (They're both cribbing from the same PC World
article: [http://www.pcworld.com/article/3162084/storage/seagates-
road...](http://www.pcworld.com/article/3162084/storage/seagates-roadmap-
includes-14tb-16tb-hard-drives-within-18-months.html)) As there's already over
100 comments on the other submissions, the "dupe" is a pointer to the earlier
discussion. While not a link to exactly the same article, using "dupe" to
indicate this is not uncommon here on HN.

~~~
bootload
Thanks @grzm didn't see that one. "Dupe". Not uncommon (HNr for 10yrs in a
month), inaccurate though. I wish HNs would be specific, because I interpret
"dupe" as literally "duplicate" article. Better to highlight earlier, better
discussion and link.

~~~
grzm
Yeah, I've thought about that, too, even when marking this submission. Any
suggestions for something that succinctly conveys the meaning?

~~~
bootload
@grzm, probably more scalable as a ^dupe^ flag set by users (with high enough
karma) and when duplicate submission checked by Angolia search.

~~~
grzm
I'm not sure I understand. I'm looking for a succinct way of expressing "this
is nearly the same submission as this other one that already has a substantial
discussion: you should likely comment over there".

As I understand what you've said, nothing should be done as it's not an exact
dupe? I don't see how that's helpful, as what would essentially be the same
discussion would be potentially split across two (or more) submission threads.

Or if you're saying it should be flagged [dupe] (as opposed to having a
comment note that it's a dupe), I'm not sure I see much of a meaningful
distinction between a [dupe] flag and a "dupe:" comment.

I suspect I'm not interpreting what you've said correctly. Thanks for your
patience :)

