You were downvoted for relatively shallow and reflexive criticism. You're not disagreeing with the article; you didn't read the article. If you genuinely want t

You were downvoted for relatively shallow and reflexive criticism. You're not disagreeing with the article; you didn't read the article. If you genuinely want to know if it's a good article, read it. You're not saving anyone any time by instead initiating a conversation about how you didn't like a sentence in the second paragraph. There was a great article recently on being a good reader. I can't seem to find it again, but the general point was that you have to assume some level of good faith and try to see through inevitably fuzzy wording to assess the fundamental points that constitute real value and insight. In reading, you win if you learn something, not if you defeat an argument. (Or maybe there's a broader problem if an article making the front page of HN doesn't count as sufficient endorsement in itself...?)