I understand the sentiment, but I think this over-simplifies things a bit. Often to really appreciate a good idea you need context. Also, often things that seem like good ideas turn out to be bad ideas given context. 217 pages of context is probably excessive on average, but really, sometimes it takes years to appreciate the reason certain things are good ideas or bad ideas.

The idea of context is especially important when presenting your ideas to smart audiences like HN. The reason? Smart people are generally skeptics, and will be quick to dismiss ideas unless you preemptively blow holes through the low hanging counter-arguments that are evident to anyone with some basic domain knowledge. I've seen this time and time again, where readers naturally assume their obvious counter-argument wasn't considered by the original poster -- when it actually was but the poster assumed that they were going to be assumed to have thought of it :) This usually isn't how it works, and results in pages of back-and-forth arguments that could have been skipped with some better context presented up-front.

Edit: The irony on this comment is not lost on me :)