6 ms·

Couldn't you just search for "Microsoft"+"watch"+"Parkinson's" and spend, let's say, two minutes selecting a "just the facts" article? You probably spent those

Couldn't you just search for "Microsoft"+"watch"+"Parkinson's" and spend, let's say, two minutes selecting a "just the facts" article? You probably spent those two minutes writing your post.

khazhoux 9y ago
I spent about 10 minutes writing my post and it was very cathartic. The article is teasing the reader. It could have easily explained the basics of the device in one or two sentences at the top. The two main questions the reader has are "Does this work?" and "How does this work?" The writer is just being cute by not getting those answers out of the way.
- giancarlostoro 9y ago
  Because I felt the same and wound up looking up another article here's one that does precisely that: https://www.fastcompany.com/3066610/how-a-vibrating-watch-helped-this-graphic-designer-with-parkinsons-draw-again https://www.fastcompany.com/3066610/how-a-vibrating-watch-he... > A new watch-like device has changed that: Strapped on Lawton’s wrist, it counteracts the tremors through vibration.
- grzm 9y ago
  Different journalistic styles appeal to different people. If this one didn't appeal to you, that's perfectly fine. To figure out why it didn't appeal to you, and why you personally find it frustrating, that's great, and a good exercise in critical thinking, literary analysis, and self examination. That said, there's a key difference between "This style of writing is very frustrating." and "I find this style of writing very frustrating." From reading other comments in this thread, the story appealed to them. What comes across to you as "the writer … just being cute" is engaging writing to others. As currently written, your critical analysis of why you find the journalistic style frustrating comes off as a rant, which doesn't contribute constructively to discussion on HN.
  - khazhoux 9y ago
    No, my post wasn't self-examination. I stated my opinion about the very low signal-to-noise ratio in this article. It's so uninformative, the article itself barely contributes to discussion on HN. The article was tech-bait.
  - enobrev 9y ago
    I agree with the gist of your reply. Different strokes, and so on. But I also found khazhoux's comment quite useful. Also, your comment seems to try to differentiate as to whether an opinion should begin with "I think" (specifically, "I find"), which is a suggestion of poor writing form. Had you followed your own advice, your last sentence might read "As currently written, your critical analysis of why you find the journalistic style frustrating comes off as a rant, which ^I don't feel contributes^ constructively to discussion on HN." I think you'll agree that those words are as wasteful here as they would have been in khazhoux's comment.
  - jessriedel 9y ago
    The fact that people enjoy different things does not mean they are all as intellectually valuable. Children like stories with talking animals, but that doesn't mean all talking animals are appropriate for all venues. Likewise, we can reasonably (even if contentiously) make value judgements about some format that people really enjoy, like pulpy romance novels, clickbait teasers, or outrage porn. HN is supposed to be about gratifying intellectual curiosity (explicitly in the guidelines). Romance novels, talking animals, and run-of-mill human interest pieces don't belong.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - grzm 9y ago
      Indeed, HN is a place for gratifying intellectual curiosity. If you feel a submission (or comment, for that matter) is inappropriate for HN, please flag or down-vote it and move on. We all play a role in curating HN. Writing excessively negative comments (or comments written in an excessively negative way) lead to a worsening of discussion.
wordupmaking 9y ago
I'm glad they took the time to write down what I was thinking while reading the article. > You probably spent those two minutes writing your post. Let's spent two years linking to that comment under every article it applies to. Why not give us what we were baited with, and then put more backstory below for those interested? Instead it's just a jumbled mess, paragraphs just jumping all over the place.

Couldn't you just search for "Microsoft"+"watch"+"Parkinson's" and spend, let's say, two minutes selecting a "just the facts" article? You probably spent those two minutes writing your post.

khazhoux 9y ago

I spent about 10 minutes writing my post and it was very cathartic. The article is teasing the reader. It could have easily explained the basics of the device in one or two sentences at the top. The two main questions the reader has are "Does this work?" and "How does this work?" The writer is just being cute by not getting those answers out of the way.

giancarlostoro 9y ago
Because I felt the same and wound up looking up another article here's one that does precisely that: https://www.fastcompany.com/3066610/how-a-vibrating-watch-helped-this-graphic-designer-with-parkinsons-draw-again https://www.fastcompany.com/3066610/how-a-vibrating-watch-he... > A new watch-like device has changed that: Strapped on Lawton’s wrist, it counteracts the tremors through vibration.
grzm 9y ago
Different journalistic styles appeal to different people. If this one didn't appeal to you, that's perfectly fine. To figure out why it didn't appeal to you, and why you personally find it frustrating, that's great, and a good exercise in critical thinking, literary analysis, and self examination. That said, there's a key difference between "This style of writing is very frustrating." and "I find this style of writing very frustrating." From reading other comments in this thread, the story appealed to them. What comes across to you as "the writer … just being cute" is engaging writing to others. As currently written, your critical analysis of why you find the journalistic style frustrating comes off as a rant, which doesn't contribute constructively to discussion on HN.
- khazhoux 9y ago
  No, my post wasn't self-examination. I stated my opinion about the very low signal-to-noise ratio in this article. It's so uninformative, the article itself barely contributes to discussion on HN. The article was tech-bait.
- enobrev 9y ago
  I agree with the gist of your reply. Different strokes, and so on. But I also found khazhoux's comment quite useful. Also, your comment seems to try to differentiate as to whether an opinion should begin with "I think" (specifically, "I find"), which is a suggestion of poor writing form. Had you followed your own advice, your last sentence might read "As currently written, your critical analysis of why you find the journalistic style frustrating comes off as a rant, which ^I don't feel contributes^ constructively to discussion on HN." I think you'll agree that those words are as wasteful here as they would have been in khazhoux's comment.
- jessriedel 9y ago
  The fact that people enjoy different things does not mean they are all as intellectually valuable. Children like stories with talking animals, but that doesn't mean all talking animals are appropriate for all venues. Likewise, we can reasonably (even if contentiously) make value judgements about some format that people really enjoy, like pulpy romance novels, clickbait teasers, or outrage porn. HN is supposed to be about gratifying intellectual curiosity (explicitly in the guidelines). Romance novels, talking animals, and run-of-mill human interest pieces don't belong.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - grzm 9y ago
    Indeed, HN is a place for gratifying intellectual curiosity. If you feel a submission (or comment, for that matter) is inappropriate for HN, please flag or down-vote it and move on. We all play a role in curating HN. Writing excessively negative comments (or comments written in an excessively negative way) lead to a worsening of discussion.

wordupmaking 9y ago

I'm glad they took the time to write down what I was thinking while reading the article. > You probably spent those two minutes writing your post. Let's spent two years linking to that comment under every article it applies to. Why not give us what we were baited with, and then put more backstory below for those interested? Instead it's just a jumbled mess, paragraphs just jumping all over the place.