3 ms·
This exactly. On paragraph four, the first sentence is this: > In order to fully understand the complexities of the scope of British Monarchy Swan Privileges,
by usui 3y ago
This exactly. On paragraph four, the first sentence is this:
> In order to fully understand the complexities of the scope of British Monarchy Swan Privileges, we need to go back to the Middle Ages, when swans were a luxury good. Valued as both . . .
I stopped reading there. I'm thinking: No, we absolutely don't need to go that far back to answer this question of who owns swans. For goodness sake, will it kill authors and video makers to tell us the answer in short-form and then help the reader decide to continue going down a long-winded explanation if they desire? This gives the same vibe as the overly-long YouTube videos that squeeze 10 minutes out of questions that can be answered in 30 seconds.
Concise and informational writing is dead, and LLMs are the final nail in the coffin.
- zamnos 3y agoFor this kind of historical minutia, of course we need to go back to the Middle Ages. That's when such things got established. Maybe if you're from a much younger country that's only been around the blink of an eye that makes sense, but that would put you in the minority. I don't know what LLMs have to do with this.
- niederman 3y agoI really don't think this article was intended to be informational: how many people actually need to know whether the King technically owns all the swans. The purpose of the article is entertainment, and just saying "he owns most swans in England and Wales with a few small exceptions" is not nearly as entertaining.