5 ms·

Author mentions "axial precession" repeatedly without explaining it. 2/3 of the way down comes this gem: > it is worth explaining what exactly axial precession

Author mentions "axial precession" repeatedly without explaining it. 2/3 of the way down comes this gem: > it is worth explaining what exactly axial precession is. This kind of writing just irritates me.

tectonic 8y ago
Perhaps that should have been defined earlier, but I enjoyed the article.
- ngcc_hk 8y ago
  I think it is ok. It is a kind of suspense.
labster 8y ago
Those of us who have known about axial precession for decades don't need to see it redefined in every article. ELI5 gets old after a while.
- timbit42 8y ago
  Right, but if the author thinks it needs to be explained, based on the audience, then it should be explained before it is referred to.
  - lugg 8y ago
    After learning more about how to write well for your audience I've become more forgiving for this kind of thing. Writing well involves a lot of tradeoffs. The article is more of a story and explaining axial precession distracts from that story. It is better suited explained later in amongst the rest of the diagrams and illustrations. The problem then is how do you tell your story and include axial precession? For readers like me who already know the term and sort of grok the concept we don't need early explaining. What I did need is the later graphic / explaining once the author started to link the concept in with other concepts not discussed until later. So either follow the rigid explain first rule or have it clustered where it is relevant and useful. Im not particularly going to judge either way there.
    - laumars 8y ago
      It’s mental some of the complaints people make on HN. Someone took time to research and share a personal passion if there’s and some armchair critics complain that a sentence should - in their opinion - have appeared in a different paragraph. Talk about missing the point of the article.
HillaryBriss 8y ago
i'm bothered a bit by the fact that in the cartoon animation the earth appears to rotate only two or three times during an entire 25,000+ year axial precession cycle.
- noisy_boy 8y ago
  I didn't know about axial precession and that visualization was what made it clear for me. Literally a picture that is worth hundreds, if not thousands, of words.
- projektfu 8y ago
  It’s a bit like a camera capturing the wheel of a fast moving car such that it appears to be rotating very slowly.

tectonic 8y ago

Perhaps that should have been defined earlier, but I enjoyed the article.

ngcc_hk 8y ago
I think it is ok. It is a kind of suspense.

labster 8y ago

Those of us who have known about axial precession for decades don't need to see it redefined in every article. ELI5 gets old after a while.

timbit42 8y ago
Right, but if the author thinks it needs to be explained, based on the audience, then it should be explained before it is referred to.
- lugg 8y ago
  After learning more about how to write well for your audience I've become more forgiving for this kind of thing. Writing well involves a lot of tradeoffs. The article is more of a story and explaining axial precession distracts from that story. It is better suited explained later in amongst the rest of the diagrams and illustrations. The problem then is how do you tell your story and include axial precession? For readers like me who already know the term and sort of grok the concept we don't need early explaining. What I did need is the later graphic / explaining once the author started to link the concept in with other concepts not discussed until later. So either follow the rigid explain first rule or have it clustered where it is relevant and useful. Im not particularly going to judge either way there.
  - laumars 8y ago
    It’s mental some of the complaints people make on HN. Someone took time to research and share a personal passion if there’s and some armchair critics complain that a sentence should - in their opinion - have appeared in a different paragraph. Talk about missing the point of the article.

HillaryBriss 8y ago

i'm bothered a bit by the fact that in the cartoon animation the earth appears to rotate only two or three times during an entire 25,000+ year axial precession cycle.

noisy_boy 8y ago
I didn't know about axial precession and that visualization was what made it clear for me. Literally a picture that is worth hundreds, if not thousands, of words.
projektfu 8y ago
It’s a bit like a camera capturing the wheel of a fast moving car such that it appears to be rotating very slowly.