> This format is interesting at first

I agree.

> but when it starts getting to 5 paragraphs of dissecting each phrase, it gets too much.

Yeah, that's true.

> Reminds me of the someone-is-wrong-on-the-internet

Isn't there usually?

> point-by-point-repliers in internet forums

I still think it's a good format.

> circa 2006

What's wrong with 2006?

Anybody who thinks HN doesn't do humor simply isn't dry enough. I, for one, miss brand-new websites with long and detailed FAQ's.

:clap emoji:

True. It made me feel like microanalyzing one of their comments. Here goes:

On:

> What I couldn’t find was a sober, dispassionate explanation of what crypto actually is — how it works, who it’s for, what’s at stake, where the battle lines are drawn — along with answers to some of the most common questions it raises.

They left this comment:

> No technology is "sober" or "dispassionate" in its creation, nor is it neutral or apolitical, and thus anyone who is claiming to view it from that perspective is DEFINITELY selling you something.

First of all, no one said anything was sober or dispassionate in its creation. And it's trivial to come up with a sober and dispassionate explanation of many technologies, even political ones. I'm certain I can find a sober and dispassionate explanation of how Israel's Iron Dome functions if I really wanted to. And second, if you have a definition of "political" that's so broad that it includes literally every technology, it's not really a very interesting statement to say that some technology is political, right?

You can explain on a technical level how the Iron Dome fulfills it's functions. You cannot explain it's social and economic ramifications without talking politics. Most of the arguments in favour of cryptocurrencies and blockchains focus on these economic and social factors (decentralised economy, NFTs for selling ones art). The technical merit of blockchain gets discussed so often, the outcome is always either "existing technologies solve this problem better" (which makes discussing the technical merit outside of a academic context futile) or "look at these economic and social improvements this technology provides" (which puts you squarely back into the political discussion).

Yeah, they probably should've left out the more nitpicky points to make the whole thing stronger. "It's interesting that he uses the word 'the' here - the definite article. Are things really so definite?"

Another aspect of the same point: After a while it should become obvious to them that they're not critiquing a Faulkner or a Dostoyevsky here. Once you've fired your shotgun into the barrel a couple of times, the fish are probably all dead!

Cynical take: They're all mad that they weren't asked to write for the glorious Times.