3 ms·
I know it's vogue to summarize articles in comments, though I'm not sure why, but this is ridiculous. His article is 11 short paragraphs - each one shorter than
by unalone 18y ago
I know it's vogue to summarize articles in comments, though I'm not sure why, but this is ridiculous. His article is 11 short paragraphs - each one shorter than one of your two paragraphs. It fits on a single page even if you have a small screen and a narrow web browser. Why is a summary at all necessary?
- vaksel 18y agofree karma
- alecco 18y agoSame for posting here things already in the top of proggit. Here is one that might get to the top too, and it doesn't seem to be submitted to HN already. Quick! http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/7vkmc/father_of_internet_warns_against_net_neutrality/ http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/7vkmc/father_of... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/18/kahn_net_neutrality_warning/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/18/kahn_net_neutrality_...
- rms 18y agoMost people read the comments first.
- iamwil 18y agoI tend to do the opposite since I figured the comments would affect my reaction to it.
- unalone 18y agoSo you rewrite the article and summarize it for the people who wanted to see commentary before content? If the commentary is summary, it starts to become a joke. I understand it for Steve Yegge articles, but this? Christ, some people must be very, very lazy.
- gjm11 18y agorms is right, vaksel wrong: the point is that most people read the comments first, and depending on what they see there may not even read the original article (there was a discussion of this not so long ago). Yes, this article is short, but I think the HN title is actively misleading. I'd never have guessed from the title that it had anything to do with network neutrality; would you?