dparticiple comments on I won a Pulitzer for explaining the Great Depression. The AI spending boom terrifies me

[+] dparticiple@sh.itjust.works -6 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Judging by the downvotes, I think my comment might have been misinterpreted. I was addressing the writer of the Fortune article in absentia, not criticizing the poster of the article on Lemmy.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] chewypoops@lemmy.world 20 points 4 months ago (2 children)

No, people just think your petty response to the headline, in the absence of any meaningful response to the article, doesn't contribute anything to the conversation.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] dparticiple@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 months ago (1 child)

Fair enough. I'll live with my downvotes, but it is a pet peeve. In the spirit of making a more tangible contribution, albeit still an off-topic one, I'll leave this slightly satirical Mc Sweeney's article here, which addresses this scourge: https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/two-sentence-headlines-are-everywhere-heres-why-you-should-be-concerned

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Akasazh@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

I do believe that having issues with the current format of media is, in itself, a trope that is as old as time.

Criticism of confirming to the norm is a bit lazy. Certainly in this case. It could've been the editor that forced him to the format.

Or do you find fault with him putting house Pulitzer prize forward in the title? Because if so, ironically inferring from your posted article, he should've used a three sentence title :p.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 1 point 4 months ago

you couldn't have addressed the writer, when you were referring to the person with the pulitzer

permalink

fedilink

source

parent