>We can metabolize a deeper-than-average scientific discussion and help convert that into reliable and responsible social discourse. I appreciate the sentiment

>We can metabolize a deeper-than-average scientific discussion and help convert that into reliable and responsible social discourse. I appreciate the sentiment, but no: HN people and related writing is invariably bad. I realize this will raise hackles. >It's just a matter of making the time, of seeking out the expert-level information, and digging in. Racaniello has a two-hour podcast comprised of complicated, expert-level information, and it takes talent to winnow that down into lay language and, more importantly, lay time-constraints. Among people who can barely concern themselves with GitHub READMEs and "wait, but what is it?"[1] site pitches, the HN population does not have a good track record at clarifying plain information, let alone translating between skill levels. This difficulty and need for understandability is where the goofs described in the article find room to exist. "Just come up with something, and something is better than nothing," the charlatan professes. The problem is that the true expertise gets clouded or even left at the wayside. Irrelevant or confounding perspectives included for no good reason, faulty conclusions, and any other kind of "it was hard before, you simplified it, now it's impossible" derivations of the source material. Of course, don't get me started on two-hour (and longer) podcasts, itself a format that is extremely hostile to a listener's free time. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22593568 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22593568