3 ms·
Alternately, if you're reading an article about something and realize it assumes familiarity that you don't have, stop reading it or follow your curiosity. The
by swatcoder 2y ago
Alternately, if you're reading an article about something and realize it assumes familiarity that you don't have, stop reading it or follow your curiosity.
The person who wrote the article did so for the audience of people that follow them, who would already be familiar with FFmpegkit: there would be no point to describing it because the name would be de facto known. Because the web is open, they don't have control over whose eyes stumble upon it and didn't submit it here. But the link got modest traction here nonetheless because enough people are already familiar or at least curious. It's a very organic process and neither the writer, the submitter, nor yourself are under any particular obligations.
- rwmj 2y agoI'm not sure if I'm interested in ffmpegkit or not (because it wasn't described), but I am interested in the dynamics of open source communities, so stopping reading the article would miss the point for me. Plus I guess as a writer you want people to read your stuff. Obviously if you don't, then don't follow all the usual rules of good journalism like the inverted pyramid, which is what I'm describing here.
- swatcoder 2y agoThis wasn't journalism; it was an address written for a personally invested audience. And even most journalism, as most writing, is written with mind with to some specific vision of its audience. That you happened to come across it is just a coincidence. What you choose to do with it is up to you, and as someone who wasn't already aware of FFmpegKit and therefore not among the addressees, presumably of no particular bearing to the author.