The title change of this submission means that many early comments now make no sense. Original title was something like "Ask HN: Is anything like this available as open source"
Troy Hunt: ”The Heartbleed bug itself was introduced in December 2011, in fact it appears to have been committed about an hour before New Year’s Eve (read into that what you will). The bug affects OpenSSL version 1.0.1 which was released in March 2012 through to 1.0.1f which hit on Jan 6 of this year. The unfortunate thing about this timing is that you’re only vulnerable if you’ve been doing “the right thing” and keeping your versions up to date! Then again, for those that believe you need to give new releases a little while to get the bugs out before adopting them, would they really have expected it to take more than two years? Probably not.”
Speaking of moderation ideas, now that there is some new blood, here's another random one. I'm not sure it's any good, and it's kind of vague, but... how about if an article gets flagged enough, the upvoters are "named and shamed" in some (not highly visible) way. It might provide a small incentive to not vote for lame stuff.
It feels wrong to out people's votes, which are normally private. The objections I've been making to inappropriate comments are public only because the comments themselves are.
Fair enough. I wouldn't want my comment votes public, but I can't think of any stories where I would mind terribly. I could see reasonable people thinking otherwise, though.
