[after a couple of downvotes] Alright Mr. and Ms. Snark Police, so I did give the article a chance. This time from the top and made it until I read this senten

[after a couple of downvotes] Alright Mr. and Ms. Snark Police, so I did give the article a chance. This time from the top and made it until I read this sentence: "In recent memory, I distinctly remember: it was past 2am, I was listening to 杨宗纬 with my amazing, noise-canceling Shures in the background of doing something that required minimal mental processing power." Yes, this text is so well written and worth my time that the author didn't even bother to proof read and see that he forgot to fill in a placeholder. And just in case anybody wonders - yes, I did continue to read it all the way down, but it was really hard not to go into skipping mode. The rest of the article is more of the above - contrived, rambling sentences and touches of delusion of grandeur. Very little value apart from boilerplate mock-inspiration. No thanks. I know that snark is sometimes too easily fired out here on HN, but I was merely stating my opinion on giving the article an honest shot. I don't think that is worthy of a downvote.