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?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
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.