I think what the article was saying is: Use common sense
And: People do not know what they want, or to be more precise, decisions of liking or not liking something are made seconds before the person becomes concious of their choice, so most of the people's desires are subconscious and what they say they like is simply a justification and not their true wants. (which has been proven through psychology research)
Of course both the advices are sound, but man what awful and utterly terrible writing.
The guy is patronising, his speech is in your face and he has no consideration whatsoever for my time. He babbles and rambles about useless stuff when I simply want to get to the point of what he is saying and move on.
So to give him a bit of his own medicine, was he actually writing for himself? Or was he writing for others?
The answer is rhetorical of course, he knows his stuff so there's no need to write what he knows unless it is aimed at others. So he is not writing about himself he is writing about others.
Now that he wrote for others was his writing mediocre?
Perhaps, I certainly think so, but was it how should I put it, popular? Well 64 comments from fellow hackers, loads more in his own blogg, probably loads of nutters linked to it.
So would he care to define mediocre?
I just do not know how anyone can read his blog to be honest.
Hello by the way, my very first comment, I'm Andrew, Nice to meet you all :)
And: People do not know what they want, or to be more precise, decisions of liking or not liking something are made seconds before the person becomes concious of their choice, so most of the people's desires are subconscious and what they say they like is simply a justification and not their true wants. (which has been proven through psychology research)
Of course both the advices are sound, but man what awful and utterly terrible writing.
The guy is patronising, his speech is in your face and he has no consideration whatsoever for my time. He babbles and rambles about useless stuff when I simply want to get to the point of what he is saying and move on.
So to give him a bit of his own medicine, was he actually writing for himself? Or was he writing for others?
The answer is rhetorical of course, he knows his stuff so there's no need to write what he knows unless it is aimed at others. So he is not writing about himself he is writing about others.
Now that he wrote for others was his writing mediocre?
Perhaps, I certainly think so, but was it how should I put it, popular? Well 64 comments from fellow hackers, loads more in his own blogg, probably loads of nutters linked to it.
So would he care to define mediocre?
I just do not know how anyone can read his blog to be honest.
Hello by the way, my very first comment, I'm Andrew, Nice to meet you all :)