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.
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.