[temporal828]

I interpreted "introductory post" to mean that it is introductory within the blog and possibly a lead in to further articles as the author hasn't written on the topic before. Not that it is necessarily an introduction to the topic.

People on this site are so full of themselves thinking that random technical bloggers on the internet have to satisfy some unwritten Hacker News style manual.

[doctor_eval]

Really we are just being curious. I like articles that talk about computational complexity, I wanted to understand it. But there was literally no hook for me to hold onto. I didn’t even know what to search for. SAT is such a common acronym.

The blogger owes us nothing. You’re the one telling us that we should already have known. Maybe instead of criticising us, you could have helped us?

[groestl]

> But there was literally no hook for me to hold onto

Ahm, from the text: "Boolean satisfiability, or SAT is a decision problem where an input is a boolean formula like [...]"

[doctor_eval]

Yeah but it appears ½ way down. I didn’t make it that far because I had no context.

[temporal828]

> Maybe instead of criticising us, you could have helped us.

I mean, I did? While the reply was brusque I did name what the topic was about: boolean satisfiability, "It's pretty damn clear from the context of complexity theory that this is about boolean satisfiability."

The comment I replied to on the other hand was not constructive at all.

This is a link aggregator site and not an editorial site, the content linked to is varied and is not going to meet a single standard, or this site will become monotonous very quickly. I don't even click or read the majority of links here because they don't sound that interesting to me, which is fine. Not everything has to be aimed at the beginner or a particular audience.

When slightly less accessible content or just personally uninteresting content is posted I don't see how a content free snarky comment is at all constructive.