Maybe if a person can't even google RAG they are not the intended audience of that article.
It’s not that I can’t or don’t know how, it’s rather that the expectation should be that a website should… link you to the information it believes to be relevant background. It’s why it’s called a “web”, linking is a core concept.
in this case there was a menu in the next empty table and you saw it but in place of getting it you want the waitress to get it for you. Which is a normal behavior but you could save your time by just getting the menu yourself.
As OP said, simply providing a link to a Wikipedia article, or a glossary, helps widen the audience beyond "IFYKYK."
The NWS knows this and automatically links to their glossary for both acronyms as well as jargon in their discussions. <-- See what I did there? What does NWS mean in this context? If only I had provided a link that would help you know. I very easily could have. I just didn't.
it also serves as a minimum barrier to entry for the masses, which isn't always a bad thing.
if you're reading this stuff, and you can't figure out what kind of RAG that the search engine mentioned is being talked about through context clues, or you aren't clever enough to feed context into the search like 'hackers , computers, rag' as a query -- there is a very high probability that the person will have absolutely nothing constructive to add to the conversation that is about the topics they haven't even yet conceptualized or are aware of.
in that case that slight barrier to entry for the conversation will serve as a tool to produce less work for the moderators and derail less threads into uselessness.
(much like this stupid divergence.)
No. Lowering the barrier of entry to those who are trying, in earnest, to learn about a new topic, to broaden their base of knowledge is NEVER a bad thing. None of us were born with the knowledge to read this (or similar) article. Trying to kick the ladder down after you have climbed it is terrible behavior and absolutely must be discouraged and stopped at all costs.
> much like this stupid divergence
The only thing stupid in this conversation is the insistence that folks who might know less than the author of the linked article or the poster do not deserve to have access to the information.
Given that the stated purpose of the article is to literally explain how simple something is, not explaining that thing seems a bit misleading, no?
I’m gonna get rich when I make a website explaining all the technical concepts in AI. Every article will just say “lol google it”, it’s gonna be great.
That is so not Web 5.0. Best I can offer is a support widget that pops up and keeps trying to talk to you until you interract with it.