News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:American Aqueduct: The Great California Water Saga by _mulder_ on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @07:39AM (#7304544)
Be honest, did anyone read the entire article?

I don't like this trend of writing incredibly long articles. It's as if the length alone somehow makes it more intellectual or credible, or perhaps just makes the author look good.

An approx calculation, assuming reading speed of 250wpm, means a 12,000+ word article, like this, will take nearly 1 hour to read.

Re:American Aqueduct: The Great California Water Saga by fivethree on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @01:37PM (#7306653)
Congrats, you're a literal child! In turns out in-depth information takes time to properly explain and discuss. If you want a 10 minute summary that teaches you nothing, watch a TEDtalk. If you want to actually learn and understand an issue, read long form journalism.
Re:American Aqueduct: The Great California Water Saga by maxerickson on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @07:44AM (#7304567)
Long form journalism is not some new trend.

I'm not deeply interested in the water situation in California, so I probably won't read this, but I don't see a problem with someone bothering to do a detailed story on it.

Re:American Aqueduct: The Great California Water Saga by _mulder_ on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @08:45AM (#7304811)
Personally, I was quite interested in it, I spent 10 minutes reading it before I realised how long the article was. Clearly others are interested too, as it's on HN. But who actually read it all the way through? Did you?
Re:American Aqueduct: The Great California Water Saga by quesera on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @09:09AM (#7304950)
I read the whole thing. It was interesting, but not linear, and definitely not dense. But it's The Atlantic, not a daily paper.

It was more of a leisurely interesting-but-not-actionable, flavor-of-the-story, Sunday-paper-with-a-bagel read. I wouldn't even call it long-form journalism. It's just bits of history and human interest tied to a current issue with a sprinkling of character and anecdote. Gratifying, not edifying.

That sort of thing has a place, but generally not what I'm looking for on a Wednesday morning.

Did you know that Central Valley almond crop irrigation consumes water equal to 1/2 of a Los Angeles?

Re:American Aqueduct: The Great California Water Saga by maxerickson on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @09:01AM (#7304900)
I didn't read it. Like I said, I'm not that interested in the situation (I'm not near the U.S. West coast...).

But I think you are wrong about the length being a matter of ego stroking. There are legitimate reasons to dive into the details, and given that the Atlantic is relatively internet savvy, there are probably people interested in the content.

Re:American Aqueduct: The Great California Water Saga by pessimizer on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @08:25AM (#7304722)
And why would anybody spend an hour reading? Ugh.
Re:American Aqueduct: The Great California Water Saga by _mulder_ on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @09:17AM (#7305001)
I don't know about you, but here on Planet Earth I only have 24 hours in my day. I'm happy to spend 10-15 mins reading an original article on something I currently know nothing about, but not an hour dedicated to it. FYI, I am a heavy reader, hence why I'd sooner spend my time reading something I enjoy (like a book!).
Re:American Aqueduct: The Great California Water Saga by aboodman on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @09:47PM (#7310005)
If you live in California, this issue is incredibly important to you and your children. Every resident should be familiar with it, and this article is a great introduction.