Before you disagree with someone on something, you need to understand it. Part of this process is discovering and understanding what is implied, not just what i

Before you disagree with someone on something, you need to understand it. Part of this process is discovering and understanding what is implied, not just what is explicitly stated. An the primary problem an author has is the need to explain to the reader. Often a good way to do this is to make statements, such as those given as examples in the article. Fully qualifying every statement can get in the way of the explanation. Of secondary importance is the need to actually prove it to the reader. Writing a proof is hard, long, and often unnecessary. How do we resolve this situation as rational readers? When you notice a "problem" in something, you must state why that problem is really relevant to the argument at hand. It may not be relevant to the argument being made. One of the problems here is that in order to understand the statements relevance to the argument, you need to actually read the argument. Stating "I stopped reading at x", it is likely that you do not understand the argument at hand, since you do not know what it says. Of course, everyone has limited time, and certain cues in the body of some writing can show if it is a waste of our time. However, to say "I stopped reading at x", and then to spend 30 minutes composing a comment on HN is engaging in intellectual dandyism, not improving the world through understanding.