|
I think it's the architecture of the web, specifically, the fact that you can't use HTML to mark up hypertext, that is the root of it (or maybe my other thread about OS structure was right... you decide) All this morning, a thread has been building in my mind. On Twitter, you read something, and a witty come-back denying yet affirming part of the original post, and feel tempted, strongly tempted, to try to add to that cascade. It's the structure of Twitter, really. Here on HN, we try to do the same, but at least we're working with higher quality resources. The problem is that you can't weave a thread together without having to expend thousands of words to replace what should be something much simpler, using a few transclusions, to provide examples of what you mean, something much more information dense, and far less verbose. Thus, it's much easier to just try to demolish something, by pointing out its most visible flaw, in a few sentences, rather that to build up a novel observation, by crudely trying to provide context with thousands of words. |