The guy in question here "asdgasd", did almost the same thing after reading that article presumably which made its rounds on Reddit and HN. However his/her talk was bordering on trolling unlike Audrey's in the same channel.
The guy in question here "asdgasd", did almost the same thing after reading that article presumably which made its rounds on Reddit and HN. However his/her talk was bordering on trolling unlike Audrey's in the same channel.
I find it refreshing actually. It's nice to read a post once in a while that eschews the preamble/genericity that typically accompanies posts that are designed to be voted up somewhere or other.
However "poorly written" isn't really a useful response - I'm sure audrey would welcome some constructive criticism either here or as a comment to the blog post itself.
I'll admit the post was rather stream of consciousness and wandered back and forth a bit, but I happen to quite enjoy that style from time to time; the trick, I think, is to remember that a discussion of personal enjoyment and social interactions is a very different beast to a technical article and adjust your approach to reading accordingly.
Seriously though, if you have concerns about the writing, elaborate - the "hard to believe" part runs quite close to the sort of attack pg's "how to criticise" stuff abhors but if you were able to make sense of it -in spite- of the writing rather than -because- of it there must be something more than "poorly written" that you can contribute on the topic ...