[HN Gopher] Ask HN: How do you find stuff on the internet now?
___________________________________________________________________
Ask HN: How do you find stuff on the internet now?
I'm getting tired of repeating every Google search with quotes
around each word. What search engine do you clever hackers use
these days, and why?
Author : nicbou
Score : 72 points
Date : 2023-02-07 16:08 UTC (6 hours ago)
| marmetio wrote:
| I've reverted my expectations about search engines to what they
| were in the early days, dusted off my old research skills, and
| accepted that I'm going to have to do some work myself. I still
| use Google, but its ability to approximate a reference librarian
| is diminished.
| kup0 wrote:
| One thing I've noticed is that it seems certain results (bandcamp
| as an example) strongly prefer a certain word order in the search
| term. For instance, I can search _artist_ _album_ and not get any
| bandcamp results but they do appear if I search _album_ _artist_.
| So, sometimes just changing word order in your query can make a
| significant difference
| danwee wrote:
| yandex.com
|
| I usually search for books, movies and mp3s. With Google is kinda
| hard (or impossible) to do the same.
| enlyth wrote:
| Yandex image search is miles ahead of Google
| danwee wrote:
| Could be. Never used Yandex for searching images tbh.
| laserdancepony wrote:
| That's Russian IIRC, is it safe to use?
| throw_away1525 wrote:
| Even if Putin himself could read your searches, would you
| care? I guess don't use Yandex if you're a Ukrainian soldier
| but otherwise what are you worried about?
| kerpotgh wrote:
| Yes, there's no telling how states like Russia secure that
| information, disseminate it to other paying customers, leak
| info about high value citizens to use as kompromat etc.
| raarts wrote:
| Much of the Russian bot farms turned out to be imaginary
| anyway (docs released by Twitter recently) so I'm not
| worried.
| type0 wrote:
| No
| danwee wrote:
| What do you mean by "safe"? It's a search engine, it just
| returns you search results. If you are worried about
| JS/tracking... well, Google and others are already tracking
| you. I use Apple devices, so Apple knows everything about me
| as well. If you are worried about the links you may click
| when yandex returns you search results, there is nothing
| special about yandex, same rules apply as in the wild wild
| web: double check what you download (e.g., do not double
| click "rihanna-song1.mp3.exe" on Windows!)
| pasttense01 wrote:
| He may mean "is it infested with malware"? Historically
| there were a lot of warez or porn sites based in Russia and
| East European countries which were.
| safety1st wrote:
| For kicks I just went to Yandex and punched in Offspring Self
| Esteem mp3. Probably the first song I ever downloaded an mp3 of
| back in the 90s.
|
| First result, some Russian site with a big download button,
| boom downloaded it. (I, uh, own it legally, of course. yeah.)
| Zero hassle. Can't believe this works in 2023. I've been under
| a rock.
| pcdoodle wrote:
| Nice!
|
| Mine was: My own summer, deftones.
| jacooper wrote:
| Brave search is nice. Also bing AI should drop today.
| thedriver wrote:
| I'm not sure if it's that much better, but I've been thinking
| about moving to some "non big tech" search engine such as
| https://gigablast.com
| graeme wrote:
| Google or Reddit, depends what I'm looking for. Google does still
| work for a lot of stuff
|
| For the kind of stuff where adding Reddit works, one issue is no
| one writes blogs anymore.
|
| I also append for a lot of things. Like say I am checking a hotel
| I'll add review and find sites which wrote reviews and aren't
| just aggregators
| racl101 wrote:
| Work stuff:
|
| I still just run queries on Google. If I know it's a
| stackexchange site I'll just go directly to the site in question.
|
| Other [everyday] stuff:
|
| It depends. Sometimes I Google it, sometimes I do Google / Reddit
| search.
|
| In short, Google ain't that broken for me. Sure, I hate that the
| top results are usually ads but it's not that bad to motivate me
| to change. I'm just not logged on to Google when I search for
| stuff.
|
| And no, I have no weird searches that I need to hide. I'm a
| normie.
| jchw wrote:
| > And no, I have no weird searches that I need to hide. I'm a
| normie.
|
| I'm guessing this is mostly in jest but I doubt most people,
| even privacy conscious people, really search anything _that_
| interesting, it 's more about the idea of being able to build a
| long-term profile of someone based on search history. And
| anyway, the less "normie" you are, the more shameless you are,
| I'd argue.
|
| Heck, there's a lot of reasons to temporarily want some degree
| of privacy or at least a little isolation. If I was going to
| search about a medical issue, I'd at least use private
| browsing, because I don't want advertisements about it to flood
| me.
| racl101 wrote:
| Yeah all fair points.
|
| Being advertised to sucks.
| satoqz wrote:
| I've been selfhosting SearXNG [0] for a few months and cannot
| complain. It's a meta search engine, i.e. collects results from a
| variety of underlying search engines including Google (if
| enabled).
|
| The main selling points for me are:
|
| - No ads
|
| - Improved Privacy
|
| - Open Source
|
| - Customisability (Plugins, Search Engines)
|
| I'm quite content with the search results even though they're not
| quite on par with the quality that Google used to have.
|
| [0]: https://github.com/searxng/searxng
| seanw444 wrote:
| +1. I was about to suggest this in my own comment.
|
| SearX/SearXNG can also improve anonymity if you use a public
| instance, too. I choose to selfhost however, as the ultimate
| customization and ownership of the instance is more important
| to me than anonymity.
|
| I find very interesting "indie" webpages frequently alongside
| my normal searches with Wiby results enabled. Wiby is actually
| fantastic.
|
| In response to the sibling commenter mentioning its slowness:
| it takes some getting used to, but honestly waiting a couple
| seconds versus half a second for results isn't a big deal with
| the wealth of relevant information it gives. With about a half
| dozen engines enabled, I'm getting like 3-4 second response
| times, and that's on DigitalOcean's second lowest-tier VPS.
| pkulak wrote:
| I tried that for a while but it's so slow. Couldn't take it and
| finally broke down and started paying for Kagi.
| aaron695 wrote:
| [dead]
| eimrine wrote:
| Torrent trackers (but not tpb usually). Just search some books on
| the topic you are interested in and that's it. For example, I
| used to have 2 medical problems which I have successfully solved
| using this method. One medical problem of mine I have solved
| completely and what about another I can prove you there is just
| no cure (despite of some doctors promise me that they can do it
| for $$$). That was a lot of reading but no other search engine on
| Earth can really search any medical stuff and no forums allow to
| discuss medical problems without a stupid censorship kind of
| "somebody might hurt yourself if he found this discussion by some
| wrong reason so we ain't allow you to discuss your medical stuff
| here".
| suddenclarity wrote:
| Maybe Facebook? I believe there are a ton of semiprivate
| support groups for different health conditions. But I guess one
| might need a starting point to be able to find a relevant one
| since they are specialized.
| Asraelite wrote:
| Do you mean public or private trackers?
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| On the other hand, theres now plenty of terms where I think,
| "theres no way I will get specific results with something so
| vague" and just resign to living in ignorance.
| user3939382 wrote:
| Kagi.
|
| DDG/Bing are ridiculous with ignoring your search terms, even
| with quotes. I had enough. Google often has a whole page or
| almost a whole page of clever-widgets before any actual results,
| not to mention my ethical objections to their behavior and the
| SEO spam.
|
| Kagi works great, I _like_ the fact that I 'm paying for it and
| my interests are primary in the relationship.
| anyfoo wrote:
| Same. I basically gave it a try, and stayed with it. I
| sometimes feel I should make more use of the advanced features,
| like lenses, but I'm pretty happy with just regular searches,
| too. Reminds me a lot of how Google used to be.
| sh4rks wrote:
| Blacklist Quora
|
| I use DuckDuckGo with Firefox Android + ublock on my phone. DDG
| is great for simpler queries.
|
| On my desktop, I use Google. My query usually ends with "reddit".
| If there's a subreddit for the topic I'm trying to find out
| about, I'll use Reddit's subreddit search feature (as horrendous
| as it is).
|
| For work - Google. I sometimes use site:stackoverflow.com.
| Recently, I've also tried asking ChatGPT for simple code
| snippets.
| bdavisx wrote:
| For searching a subreddit from google, you can do
| site:reddit.com/r/SUBREDDIT
| kerpotgh wrote:
| Google. It's still hands down the best way to find information.
|
| If I'm doing research I would start with google and then
| liberally use SciHub.
|
| Nowadays, for brand new areas of interest I start with chatGPT to
| get an overview then drill down into each new item/keyword using
| google.
| eliseumds wrote:
| Mostly Reddit or Twitter via Google.
| leeches wrote:
| Search is losing the arms race. I think we'll need to revert back
| to the model of manually curated and moderated listings, a human-
| approved island, surrounded by an endless sea of autogen noise.
| howmayiannoyyou wrote:
| Google: Any research starts here.
|
| ChatGPT: Coding, writing, configuration help.
|
| Seamless.ai & linkedIN: People search.
|
| Youtube: Topical info, deep dives.
|
| SeekingAlpha: Finance.
|
| Twitter & 4chan/pol/: Breaking news (after sifting through the
| poison, shitposts & disinfo).
|
| Reddit: Deep dives & medical & reviews.
| Gualdrapo wrote:
| Not an answer to the question by any means (now I find new stuff
| in Reddit), but recently I've noted that when you search
| something enclosed in double quotes with Google, for the second
| page it will remove them
| xnx wrote:
| Google. It's fantastic. Gets me the information I'm looking for
| in 1-2 queries, tops. Often the answer is right on the result
| page without even needing to click into a bunch of crappy sites.
| rfrey wrote:
| Your search needs must be somewhat niche. Are you doing PhD
| research on content farms?
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| Having decent google fu never stopped being important, you
| can still find what you're looking for just fine most of the
| time if you know how to ask google to find that for you.
| throw_away1525 wrote:
| So what does your 2023 google fu look like?
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| I have no idea how to answer that, because it depends on
| what I'm looking for, and involves making sure I have the
| terms that go with the subject I'm looking for.
| anyfoo wrote:
| That approach used to work well for the past ~20 years or
| so on Google, and effectively stopped working recent-ish.
| mech422 wrote:
| 'Google fu' is a myth - it's just to make us feel good.
| Google ignores pretty much +"anything" it wants to. (thank
| god it doesn't igore site: yet)
|
| What would be awesome is to have a REAL _search_ engine
| back, like Alta Vista - with a proper search language, and
| not some NLP that tries to guess what I want.
|
| Imagine being able to search a database with only keywords,
| vs SQL queries - thats pretty much the difference between
| something like Alta Vista and NLP/Google/Bing
| taylodl wrote:
| I would _love_ to have Alta Vista in 2023!
|
| I still remember when Google search first came out and it
| seemed like magic. Now that magic has long worn off. If
| it weren't for YouTube, which Google didn't even create,
| Google wouldn't be in my life at all. I think that's
| significant for a company that at one time used to be so
| dominant.
| suddenclarity wrote:
| Maybe different definitions of Google fu? I can't recall
| the number of times coworkers claim to have googled
| something for half an hour that I manage to find on the
| first or second attempt. Maybe you overestimate the skill
| of the average Joe?
| pkdpic wrote:
| That was solid.
| elforce002 wrote:
| Well, I'm using brave and for dev questions I use shebangs to
| reddit, SO, etc.
| nerddadnear40 wrote:
| Welp, time to short Google in the long run.
|
| For whatever topic I'm interested in, I'll search reddit to find
| where the hardcore fanbase is. For example, if I'm interested in
| flashlights, that would be candlepower forums.
|
| The echo chambers have grown to substantial epicenters now. Give
| me a search engine that finds _those_ and puts search in it and I
| 'd pay $5 a month for that because at that point, you've found
| the expert and active community and looking at cutting edge
| knowledge bases. I suppose it's what the academic and scientific
| communities used to be before subsidies and blue church ruined
| it.
| alangibson wrote:
| If there's one thing I'm 100% sure of, it's that letting your
| in products go to crap does not necessarily decrease your stock
| price.
|
| With a commanding position you can extract rents up until you
| get disrupted put of business. And with good enough lawyers and
| lobbyists you can avoid disruption indefinitely.
| AmericanOP wrote:
| Google is a better search engine of Reddit than Reddit.
| _Especially_ the app search which is a bloody mess.
| ace32229 wrote:
| [dead]
| kerkeslager wrote:
| > Welp, time to short Google in the long run.
|
| That's probably not a great idea for two reasons:
|
| 1. Google has their fingers in a lot of pies. You want to short
| Google _search_ , but a short on Google is also shorting all
| their other businesses, as well as shorting future ventures and
| shorting the possibility that their management will pivot
| business strategy away from search.
|
| 2. Shorting in general leans toward being a short-term
| strategy, because most forms of shorts are costly to maintain
| because you're paying interest on loans, option premiums, etc.
| Futures are probably the cheapest way, but then you're
| susceptible to short-term fluctuations: the market can remain
| irrational longer than you can remain solvent.
|
| EDIT: alangibson also makes a good point.
| rene_d wrote:
| Very happy with kagi. As good as google in its best days, if not
| better.
|
| In 19 out of 20 cases the first link is what I need, for both
| private and work related searches. Very fast, no ads.
| leobg wrote:
| For many searches, my first goto is actually Google "keyword
| site:news.ycombinator.com".
| dzek69 wrote:
| Google. Only searchpage.com is close to Google for actually
| returning me something I look for, but I'm just used to Google so
| I continue to use it.
|
| Ads are hidden for me, so I just get the results and usually when
| I cannot find something it's just because it doesn't exist.
| altdataseller wrote:
| I use Twitter Search and sort by Top threads.
| jaredcwhite wrote:
| I use DuckDuckGo 99% of the time, and the 1% I still need Google
| for, it's 50/50 if I'll find anything useful that I couldn't with
| DDG. Also Google's search UX these days is a dumpster fire.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| To be honest, I usually don't.
| mharig wrote:
| Switched from Google to Startpage, then to duckduckgo, then to
| swisscows.
|
| What really bothers me is that Google Scholar returns more and
| more crap.
| Euphorbium wrote:
| I have moved to scinapse.io and it is great. Scholar is dead.
| ilrwbwrkhv wrote:
| Google has now become what search engines were like before Google
| came. I remember putting plus signs and quotes to get a query to
| return even a modicum of descent results.
| alangibson wrote:
| I'm almost always looking for technical stuff, so I go right to
| the source. StackOverflow, Reddit, arxiv. Best of all is still
| hyper-specific dedicated forums where they exist.
|
| For shopping I use Geizhals, Idealo or huge sellers like Digikey.
| blacklight wrote:
| I have my own SearXNG instance, customized exactly with the
| search engines and the categories that I want.
| actually_a_dog wrote:
| In general, I let a lot of stuff find me via aggregators like
| Reddit and HN. If I'm searching for specific things, I'll often
| go to a specialized site like Stack Overflow. But if I don't know
| exactly what I'm after, then it's the "search Google, put a
| couple key terms in quotes, repeat" dance.
| stef25 wrote:
| G doesn't really cut it anymore for me. Anything related to
| cooking, traveling, health ... nothing but crap.
| Nicksil wrote:
| Duck it
|
| https://duck.com
| focusedone wrote:
| Duck has come a _long_ way and is seriously useful now.
|
| The Bangs are fantastic time savers too.
| https://duckduckgo.com/bangs
| jlmorton wrote:
| How are the bangs time savers? They drop you into the search
| interface of whatever site you're searching, which is fairly
| universally bad.
|
| If I try a search like "Django connection pooling !r," I'm
| dropped into Reddit's search interface, and the top result is
| "My pool has water while not being conected to my water
| system" from /r/RimWorld.
|
| This is not useful in the least.
| marmetio wrote:
| That's what the "site:" operator is for.
| stnmtn wrote:
| It's not useful for exploratory querying, but it's very
| useful when I know what I want to find on a specific
| website.
|
| For example, I want to see the latest videos uploaded on
| youtube by channel I like. I type in "!yt channelName". Or
| if I want to go to letterboxd to check out a movie's
| reviews. "!letterboxd movie"
|
| It's not much of a timersaver, it's literally just saving
| the step of going to youtube.com and then searching. But I
| love tiny efficiencies like that
| folkrav wrote:
| I do enjoy DDG, but I also still seem to have to use the !g
| bang to fall back to a Google search more often than I'd like
| to.
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| This. As much as I like the _idea_ of DDG, any time I try
| to use it again I end up having to add !g more than half
| the time.
| cassianoleal wrote:
| I was like that a few years ago when I started using it.
| With time I realised that my query was just not returning
| the expected results in DDG so I'd just add the !g as a
| reflex. That rarely helped though but I kept doing it for a
| while until I lost the habit. Now I just try different
| queries in DDG and it may not be miles better than Google
| but it's definitely not worse.
|
| As always, YMMV.
| tmaly wrote:
| There was a point in time where ddg was letting you contribute
| specific information to the results. It would have been cool if
| this had continues. An example of this would be say a way to
| return results specific to allrecipes or imdb etc.
| drcongo wrote:
| It's only 4 days since we had [0] "Ask HN: What is your
| replacement for Google search", the answer then was the same as
| now, I pay for Kagi because it's excellent.
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34643512
| jasonlotito wrote:
| DuckDuckGo.
| revskill wrote:
| duckgo.com is shorter
| jasonlotito wrote:
| Nothing is shorter. Firefox let's you setup a default search
| engine. You can enter your search term from your location
| bar.
| LanternLight83 wrote:
| Apparently duck.com works
| jasonlotito wrote:
| You can set a Default Search Engine in Firefox, and search
| from your browser without having to go to any URL first.
| jonathantf2 wrote:
| I still use ddg.gg
| f0e4c2f7 wrote:
| Adding hacker news or reddit to the query is a good trick.
| Especially if you use that to try to find a book reccomendation
| on the topic your interested in.
|
| ChatGPT is a great resource too. It's just one step in a multi
| step process though. Anything you get you want to go back out to
| the internet and verify, but that goes for random reddit threads
| too.
| pengo wrote:
| I continue using https://startpage.com without any issues.
| raybb wrote:
| What kind of things are you looking for? I've been using Kagi (a
| paid search engine with a free tier) and quite like it but tbh it
| is only marginally better than google at the moment.
|
| I've also been trying to ask questions on forums more when I
| can't find answers (or blog myself) that way people in the future
| can find the.
| smt88 wrote:
| Kagi used to be fine. It gets its results from Google, though,
| and recently it became much worse than Google.
|
| I'm back to Google and having a rage aneurysm every time it
| refuses to respect my quotes (which is always).
|
| NLP is the worst thing that ever happened to search, other than
| SEO and content farms of course.
| mech422 wrote:
| >> LP is the worst thing that ever happened to search, other
| than SEO and content farms
|
| I just wish someone would bring back alta vista with a larger
| crawl index (or even just a 'specialized' crawl index for
| tech stuff). The search language was awesome for geeks.
| Trying to make search engines more appealing to 'casual
| users' has basically left 'power users' high and dry.
| tome wrote:
| Interesting. I'm still finding Kagi as good as it was when I
| started subscribing (perhaps a year ago). I wonder what
| happened.
| ezedv wrote:
| I usually read Rahter Labs' blog: https://www.ratherlabs.com/blog
| (specially if you like Blockchain technology)
| throw_away1525 wrote:
| I'm still just appending `reddit` to my Google searches to try to
| find results written by human beings, although I am not
| optimistic that this technique will work for much longer (or
| perhaps even 100% of the time now).
| karaterobot wrote:
| For general searches, I use Kagi, even though it's not actually
| better than Google. The main advantage it has over Google is that
| (for now at least) it isn't Google. For anything even vaguely
| related to a product I could pay money for, I abandon all search
| engines and use reddit. For any topical search, I just go to
| Wikipedia, or use !w.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| I also use Kagi, via $10/month subscription.
|
| Kagi seems to NOT insert sponsored / ad results, unlike Google.
| I therefore find its signal/noise ratio favorable.
| zelias wrote:
| I append the word "reddit" to most non-technical google searches.
| Platform has been around long enough that _someone_ on it has
| discussed the issue I'm looking for
| rdudek wrote:
| I've been doing this too with additional step to check the
| user's post history to make sure it's not some SEO spam. Most
| of the time, the advice is legit.
| capableweb wrote:
| > I've been doing this too with additional step to check the
| user's post history to make sure it's not some SEO spam
|
| How exactly you do this? People sell their "organically
| grown" reddit accounts all the time, so they look like normal
| users, while just a specific post is the ad itself, then the
| account is dumped after that.
| Serenacula wrote:
| You can sell your Reddit account? Where and for how much?
| capableweb wrote:
| PlayerUp.com, Signals.sh, EpicNPC.com, the number of
| sites you can sell your social media account is endless.
| Don't expect to get too much from it though.
| cjauvin wrote:
| When you think about it, adding "reddit" is a kind of
| counterpart mechanism to the rise of AI and generated content
| in a general sense. There's a real thirst for answers coming
| from real, genuine people, and adding "reddit" is the last
| resort we have to maximize the likelihood of it.
| dzek69 wrote:
| it doesn't work for me. The only threads I can find on reddit
| are those that are dead and unanswered :(
| AmericanOP wrote:
| It is amusing I uninstalled the Reddit app because I use google
| as an entry-point so often and it's really a pain universal
| links forced me to open the app for a worse experience.
|
| Stupid product strategy to ignore Google!
| flangola7 wrote:
| Universal links?
| guelo wrote:
| Not sure why reddit has been able to resist the ever present
| corruption of money, but I think that's also why reddit is one
| of the few remaining politically progressive strongholds.
| Our_Benefactors wrote:
| > reddit has been able to resist the ever present corruption
| of money
|
| Ah yes the small family businesses of Conde Nast and Tencent.
| guelo wrote:
| I wasn't clear. The point I was trying to make is about
| what we're discussing in this thread, how reddit is somehow
| still useful for search and hasn't been completely ruined
| by seo and ad spam.
| ipaddr wrote:
| It hasn't, have you seen the new design and forceful push to
| the app where your data gets sold. They haven't gotten rid of
| old. yet but they will. Not sure about the progressive
| stronghold or if it's a woke heaven, that might be your
| subreddit
| mech422 wrote:
| gah - the new layout drives me batty. I guess its worse
| when you're not logged in (like me) - it won't just display
| the full thread in simple chronological order. old.reddit
| is better though
| harshalizee wrote:
| This is my go to search hack too. Recently, I've started to see
| it becoming more and more ineffective. Corps have figured out
| that reddit is the new SEO hack. Now there's a sudden influx of
| 'ad' posts by corps. Lots and lots of posts with a title
| "Samsung's new Galaxy 28 is cool!". Minimal upvotes, no
| comments.
| jijijijij wrote:
| [dead]
| carterschonwald wrote:
| Yeah, I'm horrified but it's wound up being the only way to
| find quality amateur writing about dog breeds. Most websites in
| that subject matter seem to be semi algorithmic content farms
| that echo the same uncited information.
| tcmart14 wrote:
| Not to mention, most of those websites are loaded up to the
| hilt on a bunch of annoying adware. You can read 2-3
| sentences, then you hit ad add you have to scroll past to
| read another 2-3 sentences to hit yet another ad you have to
| scroll past.
| seanw444 wrote:
| You browse the web without an adblocker? Courageous.
| pricci wrote:
| site:reddit.com
|
| edit: it's better to use site:reddit.com/r/ to remove some spam
| from /users/
| jasonladuke0311 wrote:
| Even then it's getting worse. Google is indexing "top posts"
| sidebars as well as the subreddit postured for a given
| timeframe. It's polluting results worse by the day.
| mech422 wrote:
| site:old.reddit.com FTW! :-D
|
| edit: its a joke..it would save me manually changing the url,
| cuz I'm too lazy to install the plugin to auto-change it for
| me.
| resfirestar wrote:
| I've been using Brave Search as my default the past ~6 months
| (previously I was using DuckDuckGo). I think Google is better at
| the "instant answer" part and its index really shines in some
| types of searches. Nobody talks much about it anymore but Google
| Books is amazing, no other search engine has that massive library
| at its disposal and for really specific topics, a result from an
| obscure old book is exactly what you need. But that said, I
| prefer Brave's layout and the quality of the first 2 pages is
| better for most everyday queries and programming questions.
| Brave's "Discussions" card is great: it presents threads from
| forums and Reddit, which gets me to an actually useful thread
| much faster than opening a bunch of tabs from a Google site
| search. There is also an interesting feature called "Goggles" for
| boosting or removing a specific list of domains, for example a
| list of sites popular on HN. It sounds like a cool idea but to be
| honest I never use it.
| Euphorbium wrote:
| I use Brave search for general search, google for market search
| when I am looking to buy something and scinapse.io for academic
| search.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-02-07 23:02 UTC)