I find it really depressing that as I write this comment, the other top-most comments are complaining about the article's UX.
Meanwhile we are radically altering the natural environment. As the TFA spells out, so superbly.
Meanwhile we are radically altering the natural environment. As the TFA spells out, so superbly.
Moderation can help, because once we see it happening in a thread, we downweight the off-topic subthreads. But ultimately the only fix for bad discussion is good discussion, and discussion about bad discussion (even about how much you dislike it) is bad discussion.
The point being, the takes here are pretty on-brand.
recommended words per slide: 20
recommended time per slide: 2 minutes
Average academic words per page: 600
nobody is sitting through a 10 hour ppt deck either.
Also: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/23/what-jeff-bezos-learned-from...
It can also far more emotional and evocative, while reading can be more analytical.
Why not combine the two? After all, that is literally what advertising does -- give some message with an emotionally-charged visual to reinforce it.
I'm not saying this is advertising (though you could make that argument through a cynical lens), I'm saying it's using the same tools that have proven to work so effectively you see you billboards literally anywhere on earth where humans congregate.
The layout genuinely hurts my eyes to read. I have vision problems and the continuous picture changes after every sentence is very uncomfortable to view. The contrast changes rapidly from bright to dark or completely black. Then there are light pictures with white text rendered over them. After the first few "slides" I had to close the article. It was too uncomfortable to read. Perhaps you should think before you run with your ableism.
There is no lowest common denominator. Stop moralising.