We accidentally solved robotics by watching 1M hours of YouTube

This was a bit hard to read. It would be good to have a narrative structure and more clear explanation of concepts.

Very intentional. Their response would be: “if you need narrative structure and clear explanation of concepts, yngmi”.

> This was a bit hard to read.

This writing style is prominent on Twitter and niche Discords. It's funny how much I've come to be able to cut right through it, but if you haven't seen much of it it's really hard to parse. That's by design, too. The vibe of this writing style is to project an air of confidence so strong that the author doesn't care if you get it or not. It's a sort of humblebrag where the writing is supposed to flex the author's understanding of the subject while also not caring if you get it or not.

As others have already covered, there's also some heavy stretching of the truth and rewriting of history going on in this post. That's also common of the extreme bravado in this style of semi-impenetrable writing: The vagueness and ambiguities allow the author to make grandiose claims but then wiggle out of them later if someone is astute enough to catch on.

For example: The blog post is written as “We…” but is the author part of the team? Or is he using “we” meaning society in general?

What's the point in writing something while "not caring" if the reader understands or not? Seems like a false confidence or false bravado to me; it reads like an attempt to project an impression, and not really an attempt to communicate.

This style of writing is very effective at convincing people in their impressionable years of a narrative or viewpoint, often one that is hard to defend with more traditional writing styles.

I hope I'm wrong, but this looks like an effort to normalize such writing style. As this happens, intelligent discourse and rhetoric become harder.

Basically: If you understand the topic well, you’re not the target audience.

This is a type of information arbitrage where someone samples something intellectual without fully understanding it, then writes about it for a less technical audience. Their goal is to appear to be the expert on the topic, which translates into clout, social media follows, and eventually they hope job opportunities.

The primary goal of the writing isn’t to get you to understand the topic clearly, because that would diminish the sense that the author is more knowledgeable than you. The goal is to sound guru-like while making the topic feel impenetrably complex for you, while appearing playfully casual for the author.

It would also be good if the perspective of the article would stay put. This "we" and "they" thing was at best confusing and at worst possibly a way to get more clicks or pretend the author had something to do with the work.

I guess "bullshitting as a career" isn't going away any time soon.

And the answer to that would be: WNGTI.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xmckWVPRaI

Capitalia tantum.