I suppose, but there are better ways people can spend their time. This article is rife with misspellings and typos, which essentially shows a disrespect for rea

I suppose, but there are better ways people can spend their time. This article is rife with misspellings and typos, which essentially shows a disrespect for readers. Secondly it's 1300+ words split into 6 "chapters" to say, poorly, what can be said in two sentences. I would not recommend it, especially on a site like HN (which purports to lean towards a higher standard). In fact as a more general rule I would say that when people try to explain something, it is lazy, almost always confusing -- and usually an indication of the writer's own ignorance -- when said explanation resorts to contrived scenarios or analogies. It's like if the UPS shipper had to deliver an elephant and twelve penguins, one of which suffered from gastroenteritis. By driving the truck using the hybrid energy recovery system, just how much conflict-gas that was fueled by the death of thousands of soldiers would a Catholic priest yield?