If you can't write about a subject directly, use creative license and make the situation up. Nobody knows / is going to find it different and it will help get your point across. I bailed on this article after the first paragraph.
Making up a situation—without disclosing that it is fiction—is risky in a practical sense and also morally questionable.
Readers typically don't like to be deceived when reading non-fiction. If a specific detail is fabricated and a reader notices, a reader can assume that the writer is sloppy/deceptive, and become far more skeptical with the rest of the author's works. Undisclosed fabrication can also lead to unsound conclusions (for example, an article could rely on the existence of a counter-example to disprove a rule, but a fabricated counter-example would make the argument fail to be valid).
Furthermore, suppose a reader cites an article with a fabricated story, relying on that story to make a point. If the story is false, the reader would take a reputational hit as well. In a moral sense, it's better for the reader to avoid fabricating situations.
It is typically good practice to make an article introduction easy-to-understand with minimal jargon, but creative license should always be disclosed when writing about a hypothetical situation. It leads to higher-quality reasoning (by avoiding arguments that rely on false anecdotal evidence) and is simple to disclose (e.g. "Consider a hypothetical: ...").
People don’t like to be deceived to the point they’ll go out of their way to believe a story is true until presented with unrefutable evidence that it’s false. Even then they’ll prefer to believe the original lie. This is called the backfire effect.
That aside, I'd be very concerned if someone took everything they read as truth unless declared otherwise. I think the overwhelmingly common behavior is to explicitly mark a real story, not the opposite.
This article is a good example where it would have helped. I did read it, (just forget aboit the start, it gets readable a couple paragraphs in) but I was also inclined to close the site after the initial paragraph. Starting like that doesn't invite to read.
It’s also okay to wade into something unfamiliar and patiently find out if you’ll get something out of it. Probably 90% of the best things I’ve read from a HN link have been completely context-bare for me when I clicked through to read.
You probably spent more time writing this than it would have taken to read far enough to gain the context you were lacking. Not that you’re obligated of course. But maybe it’d be more productive for you and everyone if you quickly dismiss by moving on to the next thing.
It’s so common, a lot of places have comment sections where people can leave their opinions.
As for making assumptions, that’s fine, I read heavy technical stuff on hn a lot and often find myself out of depth and unable to gain benefit that would apply to me from an article. So often I’ll just stop reading and go about my day.
But really, having an obtuse opener on a blog post serves no one. There’s just no flow to it.
I agree with the 90% experience, but I have to say it is very hit and miss: let's say like 50% of posts that start badly are bad throughout. (And I do consider starting with an assumed context to be starting badly. It takes just a sentence to describe the fact _that there is context_ not present in the article if you don't want to include it outright)