Wow, that's a perfect example. One thing about it I really hate, and haven't seen a lot of people mentioning, is how it navigates multiple abstraction levels i

Wow, that's a perfect example. One thing about it I really hate, and haven't seen a lot of people mentioning, is how it navigates multiple abstraction levels in a single sentence. E.g. > Worth stating because four documents now assert it. Meta commentary on the task? > a dead drag handle Drag handle seems to be referring to some UI element. What does it mean for it to be dead? So far no big deal > during a booked half-day you do not get back Do you not get the drag handle back? Or the half day? Was the drag handle dead during the booked period? (Now I assume this is a calendar UI) And why does it matter (for this sentence) if you get it back or not. > handoff-4.3-done.html's own wording Treats verbatim filenames as subjects > 4.4's review page Probably referring to a file? I'm guessing handoff-4.4-review.html? No cohesion. And now it's actually the object of the sentence? > downside of being wrong is that half day Wait what's the downside? Who's being wrong? > Checked, not recalled. Then it jumps back to a meta commentary on the methodology for asserting the above. Why does this belong to the text?