I can't help but feel this essay is literally 100x longer than it needs to be for the point it's trying to make. This sort of long-winded, redundant writing seems to have gone out of style a long time ago.
Yesterday I poured over two companies documentation. About 200 pages of their API docs only to find:
Dozen of typos. Errors in versions. Conflicts in examples. Broken examples.
I barely invest in this much reading but this time I did because I was trying to deliver and sure enough I'm able to benefit our entire product because of this effort.
Let's change this. That's disgusting. Literally.
Sounds like the law of small errors to me:
https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/devlin_4_00.html
> from article.view
Broken example due to typo.
I'm being facetious but it's actually easy to find them because their are typo PRs open in their GitHub.
Hopefully demonstrates the point though: the law holds.
Hard work needs incentives. Companies want you to light that fire yourself so they don’t have to pay extra. It’s why I’m not curious about anything work-related (plus it’s hard to be interested in CRUD apps after a decade). Even if I was, I’d give the benefits to myself and not my company.
I scrolled up and down quickly through the essay, and the above was the very first thing I randomly read.
I wonder whether he uses an editor to provide constructive feedback before publishing it or just writes and clicks "publish."
Interestingly, I found that point missing: people who do great work usually have editors/mentors/advisors to help them along the way.
There is a difference between long-form writing and long-winded writing.