3 ms·

He has put in his article a link to the Wikipedia definition of 'Forcing' (and once there, there is a link to a book describing techniques). edit: sorry, I had

• legerdemain 6y ago
  I don't understand what you comment contributes to my knowledge. The author says that he will explain a magic trick. He says that step one is to XYZ. He does not say how to XYZ. He instead links to a Wikipedia page that says what XYZ is, but doesn't describe how to XYZ in a way that would work in the magic trick. Instead, it links to a book that might say more about XYZ. I am not about to buy that book. Do you consider that trick to be sufficiently explained?
  • alanbernstein 6y ago
    I came here with the same question. I couldn't help asking it, but we've both missed the point: "which I’ve further simplified here for clarity". The details of the magic trick aren't relevant, the analogy is about the grind, not the one little deceptive detail about the trick, which could be sleight of hand, suggestion, etc.
    • legerdemain 6y ago
      Yup, and I see what the author is doing there. That's great, whatever. But if he is illustrating his point by trying to explain a magic trick, and even including a "spoiler warning," I want him to actually explain the magic trick. Otherwise, it's a kind of a comical piece of rhetoric. "Some jobs are like this magic trick I'm about to explain. First, you do something cool that seems like magic. Now you see, magic and work share an element of extreme tedium!"
  • CRConrad 6y ago
    So you're not about to do the grind. Thank you for so neatly illustrating why it looked like magic to the author's teammates.