4 ms·
It seems as though you’re reading this article—and apparently others on the topic—as some form of attention metric gaming combat. I think the author just, uh… w
by eyelidlessness 3y ago
It seems as though you’re reading this article—and apparently others on the topic—as some form of attention metric gaming combat. I think the author just, uh… wrote an article about their experience with adopting a technology.
You clearly have familiarity with the technical landscape, perhaps more than most here! And maybe I’m projecting this part, but my hunch is that (like me) you follow the space closely? If I may offer some advice, for whatever it’s worth: there’s going to be a very long tail of people coming to this, or any similar, solution with less depth of knowledge and nuance, and it might be a more enjoyable reading experience to preemptively give them some grace on that.
- nwienert 3y agoI feel like my comments are fine and curious who you think I'm not giving grace to, I'm not attacking anyone except the article framing itself. My only ask was that HN, which usually clarifies titles to be more accurate avoid extra hype, apply that here, as the company obviously profits at the expense of the uninformed with the title here. If anything I'm helping people less experienced understand this. HN does this title clarification all the time for much less concrete things. I'd ask you why you felt necessary to bring in the "weird" adjective when clearly you understand this area and exactly how the less informed may not understand those graphs and title - in this very thread many of people even seem totally confused that RSC = the only way to do server rendering = novel to React. If I can give you feedback as well, instead of trying to score a point and muddy waters, just write the improved version of what I'm saying if you feel capable of doing so.
- eyelidlessness 3y ago> If I can give you feedback as well, instead of trying to score a point and muddy waters Not trying to score anything, I just sincerely think your approach to the article and its discussion is unnecessarily combative. > just write the improved version of what I'm saying if you feel capable of doing so. I don’t agree with your perspective that there’s anything deceptive or untoward about the article—or its title—as presented. I don’t feel capable of rewriting that position. Cheers!
- nwienert 3y agoI guess the three people who confused it in this very thread were just wrong to be confused.
- eyelidlessness 3y agoI can’t stop you from continuing to engage combatively, but I’ll ask you to kindly stop doing so with me. Thanks.
- nwienert 3y agoSimilarly, I can't stop you from coloring my (very much benign) comments as weird, rude and combative, which I myself find rude and combative. If you wish to engage substantively, do see the multiple confused people in this very thread that illustrate the point clearly. It's very hard to reconcile their confusion with your point that this is clear to the general audience. Perhaps your very experience with the subject is a hindrance to seeing that. Cheers.
- nwienert 3y agoFor posterity, the parent comment edited out the word rude.