2 ms·

I just read the touch typing article. I do know what you mean by "people just enjoy things in a particular voice" and I agree with that, but I guess my main "co

I just read the touch typing article. I do know what you mean by "people just enjoy things in a particular voice" and I agree with that, but I guess my main "complaint" is that you probably also didn't learn much from the touch typing article, nor introduce anything new. That sounds like a critique, but it's genuinely not - probably 90% of popular content is rehashing. I am just emphasizing that it's where my issue lies - to really LEARN something is very tedious and potentially not that interesting to the mass audience.

merman 3y ago
No offense but I think you've gotten lost in your thoughts and wrote down a response mid-conversation with yourself. Your "complaint" has been responded to already. The author finds it useful in the moment for himself, to better understand the topic. The author finds it useful in the future, to reference. Some other people may find it useful, and if you are not one of those people, no problem. If you haven't tried this method, it's likely you are overly skeptical of it. It seems like you have an extremely high bar for anything that deserves to be written down - only that which is new, original knowledge, not written down anywhere in the total extant written history of humanity. There is an argument to be made against spam but I think you're erring on the other side. I honestly suggest you in particular try this method. It will address your underlying concern of "rehashing" which we are doing, right now.
- throw1234651234 3y ago
  None taken - I wanted to ensure I reply since Decabytes put in the effort to reply in detail. In replying "to reply and acknowledge the response", I was largely redundant. I also agree that I am likely erring on the side of wanting too much from articles.