Profanity can be like a spice, used wisely and sparingly.

Or it can be overused or in the wrong context.

It's rare you get something that can't be expressed in some other way, however - but it does exist, especially in the world of jokes.

Same. I felt that the article generally got his point across, and kept a good balance between "straight to the point" and flavor text.

And while I don't want profanity present in all the articles I want to read, I find this kind of tone way more appealing than the dry, PR-approved blog posts where the only kind of levity found are "2010 internet humor" cat pictures, and "Corporate Memphis" illustrations.

> Conveying frustration (…) sometimes requires profanity

Agreed, but that’s unrelated to what your parent comment says:

> using profanity is a lousy way to explain things

Explaining something and conveying frustration are not the same thing. So you’re not really disagreeing, you talked about something orthogonal. For all we know, the parent commenter agrees with you. It’s not contradictory to think profanity is a good medium to convey frustration but a bad one to explain a concept.

> and if you can't deal with that then grow up

That was uncalled for. Please be mindful of the guidelines. HN aims for civil discourse, not needlessly judging others.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html