This article seems to just have chapter separation and a cover image on each chapter, as well as some video inserts.

Apart from the video, this is pretty much exactly how it would be formatted in a magazine. Do you think magazines are for chumps too, because they use too many pictures?

Websites offer infinite scroll, that's their medium, pretending to be a magazine is ridiculous and frustrating.

But the web isn't a magazine. It's like arguing that printing a book on five pound clay cuneiform tablets is a good idea, because that's how the Babylonians would have done it.

Otherwise this is just a web page with some embedded images and some larger text (which is pretty common practice on any long-form story website).

Now that we've made it to the Internet, even the lowest of budgets can have full color illustrations if it's willing to pay for the artist's time. No worries about minimum print runs before it's affordable.

I mean, oh no, you had to snap out of your click-trance for five seconds to find a button to stop reading?

(I may be biased, I'm an artist who very occasionally takes illustration gigs from online publications.)

Yes. I thought it was beautifully presented and nicely paced, and well worth my time.

Also: a single "Continue" button at the bottom of each page is "logic puzzles and shit"? Three tiny logos hidden in the title bar are "social media faggotry"? Seriously?

According to my internet experience: 1) scroll down - failure, maybe my scroll isn't strong enough to get past some weird header frame thing 2) space bar - failure, maybe it's a side to side thing 3) scroll right - failure 4) scroll left - go back a page, reload 5) look at bottom of page for navigation down - failure, only outside links 6) look to right - failure, no generic slideshow next button 7) scan top of page - immediately censor out what I assume is the menagerie of facespace, tweeter, clinked-in, youporn share links

The initial "READ ARTICLE" button is a tiny link, next to links you generally assume to be worthless, in the wrong part of the page. Yeah, I consider that a logic puzzle, not daunting, but yes.

And yes, any link to "please share me on the facespace and validate me with some twits" comes off as obnoxious begging.

The web becomes a lot calmer without scripts (and you start to notice how little regard many sites have for proper web markup).

Not sure though.

Yes, I despise when someone begs me to force their work into my friends faces. If I like it enough I am perfectly capable of copy-pasting the link myself.

It's almost certainly a complaint about the use of a slur, not about the underlying complaint about the buttons.

Go spend some time on 4chan, and this will become clear--'-fag' is used as a suffix/term-of-art, and basically doesn't even register on the radar anymore as being said with any seriousness.

"Goddamn" and "Christ" were once quite serious business as well.

Quite right--4chan has a better sense of humor than HN, more original content, and is much more abrasive. :)