3 ms·

I think hating something is kind of personal matter. But very often these "long-form" articles can be tiring. They just circle around something, never getting

by genman 3y ago

I think hating something is kind of personal matter. But very often these "long-form" articles can be tiring. They just circle around something, never getting to the point, adding just unimportant details that should create some form of "connection". It very often feels that it is not long because the author has something to say but it is long because it is meant to appear that "long-form" article. It's like reading novels from Victor Hugo, where he takes good part of the volume to describe rooms in detail. Now it is certainly interesting for a movie director who would like to build an authentic interior but the fact is that he just got paid by the length, so this was his tool go accomplish his goal - getting paid more.

eastbound 3y ago
“What happens when an astronaut in orbit says he’s not coming back? … Space exploration has been a long dream for humans. Starting with Aristotle… (follows 2000 years of history with excruciating details)” I enjoy watching how youtubers circle around while never, indeed, getting to the point. In a sense, the expectation they set in the title is not respected, but an excuse to listen to them for as long as they can stretch it.
boxed 3y ago
Just saying something is "long form" because you counted the words is silly. This is Ars Technica. They aren't long because some fifth grade teacher gave them a minimum amount of pages. If the article has some length, it's because it takes the subject seriously and doesn't compromise on nuance and context just for clicks.
- krisoft 3y ago
  > If the article has some length, it's because it takes the subject seriously and doesn't compromise on nuance and context just for clicks. And yet it feels fluffy. The incident could be described in a single paragraph. The response could be an other. The organisation of the crew training and how it effected the incident could be third, while future instances when the lock was used could be a fourth. So about 800 words, compared to the 3000 words it is. Multiple of us on this comment thread feels it is fluffy, you are asserting it is not. But you are not providing any reason other than that the author is a professional and we should trust them? That is not quite convincing when at the same time I am reading their fluffy article. Why do i feel it is fluf? Because the article is going on and on while not answering any of the basic questions I have: what did factually happen in the cabin? Did he just say what he said and then went sulking? Did he move closer to the hatch? Was he trained on how to operate the hatch? How long did the fix take? What were the consequences on the schedule? What were the consequences on the experiment itself? (Did it perform as intended after the fix or did it only hobble?) Why did they had highly trained payload specialist if they were not given latitude to perform fixes? You don’t need a physicist to push buttons on a schedule. Did NASA let any further payload specialist who had this deep connection with one of the experiments on? Were fixes performed by the payload specialist a normal thing ever? Did anyone from Nasa follow up with him? Was this a misunderstanding? Are we sure he didn’t just say he is not going to return to space one more time just to try his experiment again? Where the expectations about the experiment shared between the experimenter and mission control? Have they discussed contingencies in the planning steps? Did they in future spaceflights? But they could say: “oh, the actual incident is just a jumping off point, the article is about the human factors and how we should design machinery to account for (and prevent) emotionally disturbed people harming themselves and others with them” in which case I have an other set of questions: space is not unique in the sense that people have access to simple means to end themselves. People who drive are often a simple twitch away from dying as surely as you do if you open a hatch in space. What are the statistics about that? Same about airplane piloting, same about weapons. In which ways is space different from the above, and in which ways is it the same? Are there other things to worry about, or is it only the hatch? Did anything similar ever happen on a submarine, or an artic station? And instead of answering any of these important and interesting questions the author is going on in length what feels like the same 2 and half facts again and again.
  - JohnBooty 3y ago
    Because the article is going on and on while not answering any of the basic questions I have: what did factually happen in the cabin? Did he just say what he said and then went sulking? Did he move closer to the hatch? Was he trained on how to operate the hatch? How long did the fix take? What were the consequences on the schedule? What were the consequences on the experiment itself? (Did it perform as intended after the fix or did it only hobble?) Why did they had highly trained payload specialist if they were not given latitude to perform fixes? You don’t need a physicist to push buttons on a schedule. Did NASA let any further payload specialist who had this deep connection with one of the experiments on? Were fixes performed by the payload specialist a normal thing ever? About half of these were answered in the story, so I don't know, maybe you skimmed it too quickly. Read it again? As for the rest, the author of the article went to some lengths to explain why information is scarce: most of the crew members are no longer living, Wang won't comment, and NASA apparently prefers not to remark on such a sensitive topic. It's still quite an informative article, even though (by the author's own admission) questions remain unanswered. If the alternative was to simply not publish the article, I think they chose correctly. I certainly know a lot more about the topic than I did before reading it, which is a fine metric. But they could say: “oh, the actual incident is just a jumping off point, the article is about the human factors Two thoughts here. One: you seem to have made that connection on your own, so kudos! I guess they didn't need to say it. Two: I mean, how would you have liked them to be more explicit about this?
    - krisoft 3y ago
      > If the alternative was to simply not publish the article The alternative is to write a shorter article.
  - boxed 3y ago
    It's funny that you complain about that article was too fluffy... by writing such an enormously long comment.
Saline9515 3y ago
Journalism is a branch of literature. Some articles may be very short and straight-to-the-point, others longer to explain the context, with sometimes some subjectivity - see for instance "gonzo journalism". Here, the author explains that while we broadly know what happens, there is no precise-written record about it. And the incident had long-lasting consequences. I enjoyed the article very much personally.
- krisoft 3y ago
  > the author explains that while we broadly know what happens, there is no precise-written record about it The author implies that, but doesn’t say it outright. I for one can’t believe NASA doesn’t have reports and communications and debriefs saved in triplicate. Did they even try to FOIA for infomation, or just phoned around failed to get callbacks and shrugged?
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    >I for one can’t believe NASA doesn’t have reports and communications and debriefs saved in triplicate. You know we are missing a significant amount of moon footage right? NASA doesn't archive 100% of everything because it barely has the budget to do it's actual mission.
PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
20k leagues under the sea is like that. It's actually a good story, but fuck me if I'm willing to sift through all the descriptions of the animal life. Jules Vern would take 10 pages to describe what someone else could in 1 paragraph.

by genman 3y ago

eastbound 3y ago

“What happens when an astronaut in orbit says he’s not coming back? … Space exploration has been a long dream for humans. Starting with Aristotle… (follows 2000 years of history with excruciating details)” I enjoy watching how youtubers circle around while never, indeed, getting to the point. In a sense, the expectation they set in the title is not respected, but an excuse to listen to them for as long as they can stretch it.

boxed 3y ago

Just saying something is "long form" because you counted the words is silly. This is Ars Technica. They aren't long because some fifth grade teacher gave them a minimum amount of pages. If the article has some length, it's because it takes the subject seriously and doesn't compromise on nuance and context just for clicks.

krisoft 3y ago
> If the article has some length, it's because it takes the subject seriously and doesn't compromise on nuance and context just for clicks. And yet it feels fluffy. The incident could be described in a single paragraph. The response could be an other. The organisation of the crew training and how it effected the incident could be third, while future instances when the lock was used could be a fourth. So about 800 words, compared to the 3000 words it is. Multiple of us on this comment thread feels it is fluffy, you are asserting it is not. But you are not providing any reason other than that the author is a professional and we should trust them? That is not quite convincing when at the same time I am reading their fluffy article. Why do i feel it is fluf? Because the article is going on and on while not answering any of the basic questions I have: what did factually happen in the cabin? Did he just say what he said and then went sulking? Did he move closer to the hatch? Was he trained on how to operate the hatch? How long did the fix take? What were the consequences on the schedule? What were the consequences on the experiment itself? (Did it perform as intended after the fix or did it only hobble?) Why did they had highly trained payload specialist if they were not given latitude to perform fixes? You don’t need a physicist to push buttons on a schedule. Did NASA let any further payload specialist who had this deep connection with one of the experiments on? Were fixes performed by the payload specialist a normal thing ever? Did anyone from Nasa follow up with him? Was this a misunderstanding? Are we sure he didn’t just say he is not going to return to space one more time just to try his experiment again? Where the expectations about the experiment shared between the experimenter and mission control? Have they discussed contingencies in the planning steps? Did they in future spaceflights? But they could say: “oh, the actual incident is just a jumping off point, the article is about the human factors and how we should design machinery to account for (and prevent) emotionally disturbed people harming themselves and others with them” in which case I have an other set of questions: space is not unique in the sense that people have access to simple means to end themselves. People who drive are often a simple twitch away from dying as surely as you do if you open a hatch in space. What are the statistics about that? Same about airplane piloting, same about weapons. In which ways is space different from the above, and in which ways is it the same? Are there other things to worry about, or is it only the hatch? Did anything similar ever happen on a submarine, or an artic station? And instead of answering any of these important and interesting questions the author is going on in length what feels like the same 2 and half facts again and again.
- JohnBooty 3y ago
  Because the article is going on and on while not answering any of the basic questions I have: what did factually happen in the cabin? Did he just say what he said and then went sulking? Did he move closer to the hatch? Was he trained on how to operate the hatch? How long did the fix take? What were the consequences on the schedule? What were the consequences on the experiment itself? (Did it perform as intended after the fix or did it only hobble?) Why did they had highly trained payload specialist if they were not given latitude to perform fixes? You don’t need a physicist to push buttons on a schedule. Did NASA let any further payload specialist who had this deep connection with one of the experiments on? Were fixes performed by the payload specialist a normal thing ever? About half of these were answered in the story, so I don't know, maybe you skimmed it too quickly. Read it again? As for the rest, the author of the article went to some lengths to explain why information is scarce: most of the crew members are no longer living, Wang won't comment, and NASA apparently prefers not to remark on such a sensitive topic. It's still quite an informative article, even though (by the author's own admission) questions remain unanswered. If the alternative was to simply not publish the article, I think they chose correctly. I certainly know a lot more about the topic than I did before reading it, which is a fine metric. But they could say: “oh, the actual incident is just a jumping off point, the article is about the human factors Two thoughts here. One: you seem to have made that connection on your own, so kudos! I guess they didn't need to say it. Two: I mean, how would you have liked them to be more explicit about this?
  - krisoft 3y ago
    > If the alternative was to simply not publish the article The alternative is to write a shorter article.
- boxed 3y ago
  It's funny that you complain about that article was too fluffy... by writing such an enormously long comment.

Saline9515 3y ago

Journalism is a branch of literature. Some articles may be very short and straight-to-the-point, others longer to explain the context, with sometimes some subjectivity - see for instance "gonzo journalism". Here, the author explains that while we broadly know what happens, there is no precise-written record about it. And the incident had long-lasting consequences. I enjoyed the article very much personally.

krisoft 3y ago
> the author explains that while we broadly know what happens, there is no precise-written record about it The author implies that, but doesn’t say it outright. I for one can’t believe NASA doesn’t have reports and communications and debriefs saved in triplicate. Did they even try to FOIA for infomation, or just phoned around failed to get callbacks and shrugged?
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  >I for one can’t believe NASA doesn’t have reports and communications and debriefs saved in triplicate. You know we are missing a significant amount of moon footage right? NASA doesn't archive 100% of everything because it barely has the budget to do it's actual mission.

PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago

20k leagues under the sea is like that. It's actually a good story, but fuck me if I'm willing to sift through all the descriptions of the animal life. Jules Vern would take 10 pages to describe what someone else could in 1 paragraph.