I'm not sure. Unlike the impression I might have given, I'm actually someone that puts a lot of stock in nuance and dislike simplifications that turn away from

I'm not sure. Unlike the impression I might have given, I'm actually someone that puts a lot of stock in nuance and dislike simplifications that turn away from the truth. But when you are communicating, it is common sense to make sure the important points come across, then only dive into the details. Unfortunately that is not always something you are incentivized to do in academic research, where fumigation is the norm. I'd also point out that one can be terse and uninformative as well - point in case: most public Git repositories out there. I enjoy reading, and will often read long pieces -- albeit I would wish they were terser, because often they could be, with no loss of precision. I have also never met anyone that, even though they like to read like I do, would take pleasure in reading something that drones unnecessarily. When communicating, that is -- plenty of people enjoy the mini-novels put out by Slate, the New Yorker, ... (and me too, sometimes). I have taken to the habit to summarizing the things I read on my blog. These summaries are of course less informative than the source, but the signal-to-noise ratio is much higher.