News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Politically Incorrect Guide to Ending Poverty (2010) by eropple on Sunday July 17, 2016 @12:27PM (#12110667)
What you're describing as "fluff", most people describe as "long-form writing." If you're reading purely for brrt-brrt-clank-insert-information-into-meatbot-head, you're missing out.
Re:The Politically Incorrect Guide to Ending Poverty (2010) by dorfsmay on Sunday July 17, 2016 @12:37PM (#12110711)
Different learning styles and purposes. Even people I know who enjoy descriptive detailed writing when reading a novel like to-the-point list of facts/arguments when reading news and essays.
Re:The Politically Incorrect Guide to Ending Poverty (2010) by jedmeyers on Sunday July 17, 2016 @12:40PM (#12110721)
Others might also describe it as "getting paid by the word count".
Re:The Politically Incorrect Guide to Ending Poverty (2010) by rhizome on Sunday July 17, 2016 @02:57PM (#12111263)
You're high if you think that The Atlantic is some Demand Media/About.com/wikihow content spoo.
Re:The Politically Incorrect Guide to Ending Poverty (2010) by tomjen3 on Sunday July 17, 2016 @01:45PM (#12110958)
With few exceptions the long-form articles posted here are all normal articles padded with bullshit, not very in-depth articles. I wouldn't want to read them either.
Re:The Politically Incorrect Guide to Ending Poverty (2010) by k__ on Sunday July 17, 2016 @12:42PM (#12110731)
bullshit.

If someone would write an article that long without offtopic infos that would be cool.

most of this text is just fluff to stretch out the whole thing without adding anything...

Re:The Politically Incorrect Guide to Ending Poverty (2010) by rhizome on Sunday July 17, 2016 @02:57PM (#12111265)
Which parts are offtopic?