That's one of the best blog posts I've read in a while. It nails the idea of "write one line that makes the reader want to read the next". It's humorous but also serious. There's no fluff. Instant subscribe.
I lost it when I read that, what a great post.
LLMs write bland LinkedIn "thinkpieces", not Douglas Adams style creative wordplay.
Why do people expect their non-fiction reading to be entertaining? That's not the point and I inherently don't trust your judgement if that's what you're looking for. At some point you've got to provide insight.
Why though? Seinfeld had nine seasons of no insight and it did okay.
There's an element of discovery in this article, as well as being entertaining and informative. Her writing is—subjectively and objectively—uncommonly good.
[1] do we prepend great- when referring to parent comments more than two levels (GP) up? Or do we just say GP and rely on context?
Most non-fiction aims to inform, and most fiction aims to entertain, but either can do either.
I didn't really care too much about rodent-repelling tape before reading and don't care much now. It was the entertaining writing that brought value for me.
I really liked it, and clearly a lot of people here liked it too! You're free to dislike it, but that doesn't make it pointless. There's more to humanity than pure, unadulterated facts (however important and interesting they really are!)