[ToucanLoucan]

These examples are not good, almost none of those are what most people would call middlemen. A perfect example of an actual middleman would be the type of hustle grindset loser who sets up an Amazon store that sells merchandise from Alibaba at steep price hikes while contributing nothing to the product or its delivery. That’s a middle man.

[LinchZhang]

Why fixate on a specific word rather than the overall idea? If the idea is clear enough I don't think it's worth fighting over semantics.

[ToucanLoucan]

It's not semantics, it's your entire point:

> A merchant a) physically moves wheat to where it’s scarce (and valued more), b) physically moves beans to where it’s scarce (and valued more), c) figures out an exchange rate, and d) takes on risks of spoilage and banditry. For her efforts, the merchant takes a fractional cut.

This is not a middle man, this is logistics! An entire segment of the global economy, and not a small one!

> Ten people want to build a bridge. But they face problems: Who works on the foundation vs. the supports? How do we prevent the left side team from building something incompatible with the right side team? When is the foundation strong enough to start building on top? How do we know if we’re on track or behind schedule?

This is project management, also not a middle man!

Like I get nobody likes being criticized but dude, your entire post is resting on a bad foundation. If you start off an article about cars talking about how jetskis are the future of highway transportation, I'm not gonna take that seriously either, because you fumbled it on the starting line.

[exmadscientist]

It isn't clear enough, though. Your argument is actually seriously muddled by your choice to redefine the common usage of a word to your own usage. The viability of your title flips depending on whether one adopts your definition or the common definition.

That's bad writing.

[russelldjimmy]

I think many readers have a hard time letting go of whatever expectation the title created in their mind and then refocusing to try and understand the broader point. Not that I support clickbait titles or poor communication, but I do agree with you that it’s generally more helpful to let go of the semantic details as long as the broader point is understood. But many people choose to get hung up over the words (probably) because of an inability to self soothe the first shock.

[LinchZhang]

If you have suggestions on a better title, please let me know! I tried pretty hard to come up with different ones, giving time constraints, and this was the best one I had. I'm really bad at titles and this is an area of active growth for me :)

[russelldjimmy]

If I happen to think of one, I will let you know for sure. Also, remember that on the internet, only those who have an issue with something will make a comment. There is always a vast silent majority of people who would say, “this is actually fine with me and I have no issues with it” if asked. It’s safe to say your title is not bad. There will always be someone for whom it doesn’t work and the internet has a selection bias to give only them a voice.

Edit: while writing my earlier comment, I didn’t realise that you were the author. I did not mean to say your title is clickbait. I was only trying to make a concession to anyone who thought so.

[LinchZhang]

Thank you for your kind words and empathy! I appreciate it. Writing to the void is hard, and while I care a lot about improving and not being wrong, I also appreciate it when people realize that the writer on the other side of the screen is a real person, and deliver their feedback with kindness and empathy.

[kykat]

Yep, you can't just "redefine" a noun to get a clickbait title

[christophilus]

I mean, you just described a whole lot of the internet.

[ToucanLoucan]

I mean, you can do it but nobody calls that good, worthwhile reading.

[AndrewDucker]

In which case they're contributing discoverability. Because clearly the buyer didn't discover the original store themselves, but did find it on Amazon.