Where I replied to wasn't that the author is taking credit but making it hard to get the context for where the ideas came from. (With the one citation implying

Where I replied to wasn't that the author is taking credit but making it hard to get the context for where the ideas came from. (With the one citation implying a very wrong thing about how old that idea is.) Specifically the comment I replied to suggested it was a style tradeoff but I don't see why you can't do citations in either style. That's all I came here for. > I'm also confused by the idea that they didn't provide enough citations for concepts in a non-academic source. It's useful information about how we got here. That's good in any long story about an idea. > I feel like in the day and age of Wikipedia it should be sufficient to colourize / bold terms like "Entropy coders" or "Huffman Encoding" to indicate to the reader that these are important terms that they can research for more details if interested. It works to some extent but some of the concepts don't have fancy words for them and then they don't get that searchability. > ~80/285 comments Sometimes tangents spark a discussion. I don't think those numbers are an issue. And they're mostly not calling it a bad post, they just have an objection.