5 ms·
> one needs to consider this in the context of his larger body of work. That seems odd and it feels like you are defending it out of agreement with the author.
by triyambakam 4y ago
> one needs to consider this in the context of his larger body of work.
That seems odd and it feels like you are defending it out of agreement with the author.
If this is a poor article, why can't it be criticized as such? If Shakespeare, who for this analogy is considered a great respected author, wrote a lazy and uninspired play, one should just endure just because it's Shakespeare and "one needs to consider this in the context of his larger body of work"? That's unnecessary and fallacious.
- dang 4y agoNo, you're right - I didn't put that well. (I've been posting hastily trying to prevent this thread from devolving into a tedious flamewar and haste is bad for precision!) On HN we definitely try to go by article quality (past explanations from a slightly different angle: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22article%20quality%22%20%22site%20quality%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...). I guess what I meant to say was more like: don't judge this article (or any article) by just the headline! and also, if you're pattern-matching this article to garden-variety flamebait, it would be good to know who the author is, because the priors here are totally different than how they appear.