Thanks for taking the time to write this up, it’s something I wasn’t consciously aware of, but, as you say, extremely obvious in hindsight.
Since it’s your first article: you have way too much spacing, both in general (ie. too many short paragraphs) and in the spacing itself (it looks like you have 3 or 4 lines of white space between paragraphs). And your tone is mildly offputting—I know that you’re mocking your past-self for acting as though you weren’t governed by statistics, but… gah, I’m having trouble qualifying exactly why it bothers me. I want to call it patronising but I’m not sure that’s quite the right word.
I know that you’re mocking your past-self for acting as though you weren’t governed by statistics, but… gah, I’m having trouble qualifying exactly why it bothers me. I want to call it patronising but I’m not sure that’s quite the right word.
I was attempting to keep in mind short inferential distances. I tried to make each thought as small a step from the next as possible. Perhaps I went too far in the other direction?
Thanks for taking the time to write this up, it’s something I wasn’t consciously aware of, but, as you say, extremely obvious in hindsight.
Since it’s your first article: you have way too much spacing, both in general (ie. too many short paragraphs) and in the spacing itself (it looks like you have 3 or 4 lines of white space between paragraphs). And your tone is mildly offputting—I know that you’re mocking your past-self for acting as though you weren’t governed by statistics, but… gah, I’m having trouble qualifying exactly why it bothers me. I want to call it patronising but I’m not sure that’s quite the right word.
I was attempting to keep in mind short inferential distances. I tried to make each thought as small a step from the next as possible. Perhaps I went too far in the other direction?
Also, thank you for the feedback.
I actually like the 3-4 empty lines. I didn’t even notice them until I read your comment, but I think they make the post easier to read (and skim).