3 ms·
You mean 'substance' as in 'objective fact'? Well there isn't, that was the whole point of the comment. Everything as far as I can find is factually correct, an
by roel_v 3y ago
You mean 'substance' as in 'objective fact'? Well there isn't, that was the whole point of the comment. Everything as far as I can find is factually correct, and yet how it's all woven together makes the narrative feel robotic and off tune. Like, another commenter brought up that it may have been ML generated, which I don't think it is; but it does give me the same feeling as, say, 95 to 99th percentile ML images - it makes you do a second take for no (prima facie) apparent reason.
Then again, maybe I'm just a nitpicking weirdo. Although I've gotten enough upvotes by now that it seems that others have the same feeling. Maybe someone else can explain the reason for their subjective emotions upon reading this better.
- allturtles 3y agoSubstance as in "you say these things are 'off', can you explain why you consider them 'off'"? Based on the sibling thread about the geographic extent of the modern Netherlands vs. the post-revolt Dutch Republic, yes, to me it seems like you're nitpcking. The author is trying to give a rough reference point to readers not familiar with the details of the history or geography. Trying to enumerate the changes in borders would be tedious, beside the point, and go over the head of most readers (who wouldn't recognize the names of the relevant towns/regions/etc.) Edit: Though I'm defending the author on this point, I would agree that this isn't a great piece of writing. It's a "potted biography" that doesn't seem to have much of an overall point.