←back to thread

210 points scapecast | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
bigstrat2003 ◴[] No.45059108[source]
I don't see how this has anything to do with PowerPoint. There wasn't clear communication; the medium was completely incidental to that. They could have been writing on a chalkboard and had a communication failure, does that mean that chalkboards should be blamed in that case?
replies(6): >>45059191 #>>45059348 #>>45059699 #>>45060601 #>>45061971 #>>45067121 #
1. recursivecaveat ◴[] No.45059348[source]
Yeah, the choice to gloss over the point "our tests are not relevant" was a deliberate one. If it was in a paper you'd have big fancy graphs of the tests and you'd have to do your own work to compare the x axis against a mention of the actual scale in question in another paragraph. It's not as if they started with "Warning: even the 600X smaller bits we tested can damage the wing" and microsoft just kind of spontaneously grew a bunch of random stuff above the fold. It's a kind of chickenshit communication which you can do in any medium. The point they ought to be making is not dense or technical, it is so simple a child could understand.