Hacker News Reader

ChatGPT summarized: "Something something Twitter bad."

People, including the person reading this comment right now, just see “RSS good” in the title and click the upvote button.

Yeah, I think you’re right. It rode to the top on the title alone. I might have been a little harsh, but things like this really grind my gears :)

> I’ve tried twice now, and for the life of me, I have absolutely no idea what this post is trying to say.

It's answering the question: "Each year, Nieman Lab asks some of the smartest people in journalism what they think is coming in the new year. Here are their predictions for 2023."

> For an associate professor of communications, the writing is absolutely atrocious. I can’t make heads or tails of this rambling multitude of grammatical errors, passive aggressive insults, and buzz-word saturated soup.

Is that true? Heads or tails? Seemed trivial to understand this for me.

> I get that it one of a collection of predictions about how media in 2023 will look,

Oh, and you still don't get that it's saying that 2023 will be the rise of the RSS reader? I thought that was pretty obvious.

> I have no idea why it’s here

Here on HN? Because someone shared it and people upvoted it. That's how HN works.

Or do you mean on the site? I think we've discussed that already.

> Especially if you don’t want to confuse your reader, and actually express a clear thesis.

I don't think it was meant to convince you of anything. It was merely predictions. A simple question, and simple answers, shared online. It's not complicated.

> I might bookmark this just as an example of how not to write a post.

I'm doing the same for your comment, for similar reasons.

Note: Don't like the tone of this comment? Just reflecting the energy you put out.

I agree with GP.

"The difference, going into 2023, is that even the Inbox Zero people are going to have a reason to complain. Left without a better way to quickly zoom in and zoom out on the state of the universe (also known as the world according to Twitter), I predict those people will reach a point of frustration in even their ability to manage email."

What does this even mean? This is a massive non-sequitur. I stopped reading here.

That is totally written by a robot.

It means the person is getting paid by the number of words in the article.. so adding a bunch of fluff to increase that count

Is that true? Heads or tails? Seemed trivial to understand this for me.

I understood it, too. But then, I have a degree in Communications.

People on HN think that just because they can understand written source code that they can automatically understand any writing.