Wow, that sure was a great article/book/blog post/reddit post/essay you just read! Well… mostly. After reading it, you have some reservations. For example, the author might have said the phrase “everyone knows”, but technically, not everyone knows! How can you enjoy an article if it’s clearly wrong in some way?

Don’t worry! The author has linked to this list of caveats, which apply to the work you just read (hereby referred to as “the article”). Viewed through the lens of these caveats, the article will be much easier to appreciate, especially to pedants and nitpickers. Please read through them before leaving any comments, to avoid personal embarrassment.

The Caveats

The “Not All” Caveat: The author said “all” or something like it. All people. All fish. Every turtle. Each and every American. But you know there may be exceptions or edge cases. However, it would be tedious to call that out in every case, and the author hereby acknowledges the possibility that such exceptions could exist whenever they use a word like “all”. Therefore, comments of the following form are invalid:
- “You said all men struggle to verbalize their emotions, but some men actually aren’t like that.”
- “Not all wars are about power. Some wars are defensive.”
The “Wrong Degree” Caveat: The author takes a position in the article. But you know that they have slightly overstated things, or that they didn’t go quite far enough. Or the emotional tone is not quite what you think it should have been. However, it is hereby not the intention of the author to claim their position is exactly, 100% correct, with the exactly correct amount of emphasis and intensity. Their goal was simply to say what they believed to be true. Therefore, comments of the following form are invalid:
- “I agree with the author, but I think they’re exaggerating things.”
- “This article has a point, but I don’t think it’s quite that bad.”
- “This is worth paying attention to, but not worth sounding alarm bells over.”
The “Bigger Fish to Fry” Caveat: The author makes an argument in the article, perhaps on a topic of importance. But you know this isn’t the most important thing to be talking about with respect to that topic. And there may be topics more worthy of attention than this. However, the author hereby states their goal with their article is not to talk about the most important possible thing on the planet, but rather the thing that happens to interest them and which they currently find personally important. After all, multiple things can be good/bad at the same time. Therefore, comments of the following form are invalid:
- “How can you talk about plastic bags when there’s a genocide happening in Gaza?”
- “This is true, but this isn’t even the main thing causing a decrease in software quality over time.”
- “Why are we debating the ethics of including dark mode in an AI chatbot when AI misalignment could kill us all?”
The “Wrong About Minor Details” Caveat: The author includes a lot of factual details in their article (hopefully). But you know that one of the details they mentioned is incorrect! However, the mistake you have noticed is not materially relevant to the article’s main argument. Perhaps what the author said is not technically true, but their meaning is easily understood. If materially relevant details are wrong, the author acknowledges they are still at fault, of course. But the author hereby acknowledges that some of the minor details of the article may be wrong, and that their goal in writing the article was not for it to be 100% correct in every possible way, as that would require too much effort and would make the writing tedious and full of qualifications. Comments of the following form are therefore invalid:
- “The author says Git was released in 2004, but it released in 2005. If they can’t get that right, how am I supposed to trust their opinion on the Israel-Palestine conflict?”
- “Actually, Java isn’t strictly pass-by-value. Kind of undermines your credibility to be talking about technical topics.”
The “Jokes and Irony Exist” Caveat: The author says some things that are not literally true. You believe they are being serious, or they aren’t being serious but are being flippant and should treat the subject with more gravity. However, the author hereby declares that their intention is not to say only true things, but sometimes to say untrue but entertaining things, and they rely on the audience to be able to sort out the difference. Also, the author hereby declares that their goal is not to be as serious as possible at all times, and have intentionally chosen to include levity in their article according to their own tastes, which may or may not be at odds with your own. Therefore, comments of the following form are invalid:
- “Your joke about ‘turning it on and off again’ being all support desk workers do is demenaning to IT professionals.”
- “Saying JavaScript is held together with duct tape is spreading misinformation about a robust language that’s just as valid as any other.”
The “Hyperbole Exists” Caveat: The author says things in their article, but way overstates them. You know reality is not as dramatic as the author says. However, the author hereby declares that hyperbole exists, and they have possibly chosen to use it intentionally. Maybe they said “literally every person knows…”, but not every person knows. They are not unaware of this contradiction. After all, it is obvious that not every person knows. There is not a single learned fact that every human being knows, after all, since newborn infants exists. So the statement and similar statements are to be taken as intentional hyperbole. Therefore, comments of the following form are invalid:
- “The author says literally every woman cares about money, but the women I know also care about other things, and don’t care about money that much.”
- “You’re wrong to describe Rust as a cult.”
The “Incomplete or Failed to Elaborate” Caveat: What the author said in their article was good and true, but it left out some details you feel are important, or they didn’t go into further detail in an area you think they should have. Or perhaps you just think they weren’t thorough enough or could have done a better job. However, the author hereby declares they did not intend their article to be complete, all-encompassing, or final. Therefore, comments of the following form are invalid:
- “I think you’ve ignored the biggest factor when it comes to microservices: deployment.”
- “How can you talk about procrastination without talking about sleep?”
The “Author Sucks” Caveat: You agree with what the author said (or you don’t), but you have a hard time taking them seriously because in the past they have said something you disagree with or were offended by. They may have even, heaven forbid, changed their mind about something, and are now writing an opinion different from their earlier opinion. The author hereby acknowledges that they suck and have many flaws beyond those you wish to articulate, and are as a human being a work in progress. In the interest of staying on topic, comments of the following form are invalid:
- “This you? (link to image of the author being wrong or saying something apparently contradictory to what they’re saying now).”
- “This is the same company that laid off half its engineers last year. Why should we listen to them about employer surveillance?”
- “Just so everyone knows, this is the same author who once said that Microsoft shouldn’t be punished for collecting user data by default. Clearly they shouldn’t be taken seriously.”
The “Contradiction by Association” Caveat¹: You associate the author with a group of people. The author has just said something that is the opposite of what others in that group say. Aha! They’ve just contradicted themselves, and you’ve caught them in the act! However, the author hereby states that their opinions are their own, and any association you may perceive between them and other humans does not impinge upon them a duty to never say anything contrary to what the rest of their group says. They are an individual, not a spokesperson for any group or team. Therefore, comments of the following form are invalid:
- “Oh, you think sex work should be decriminalized? I was under the impression you feminists thought sex work was exploitative?”
- “Funny to hear an OpenAI employee talk about AI safety with a straight face.”
- “But I thought you were a Christian? Aren’t you supposed to be against abortion?”
The “This is Obvious” Caveat: What the author says is true, but it’s so obvious you don’t even know why they’re talking about it. Surely there are better things to write an article about. However, the author hereby acknowledges that what they wrote may be obvious to some people, or even to many people, but they chose to write the article anyway because it was once not obvious to them, and they hope to reach others for whom it is not obvious. Therefore, comments of the following form are invalid:
- “Everyone knows premature optimization is bad. There have been a thousand articles written about this before.”
- “You wrote a whole post just to say ‘sleep is important’? No kidding!”
The “Inadequate Solution” Caveat: The author correctly points out a problem, but you believe the solution they proposed is inadequate, or they didn’t propose any solution, or there is no known solution. In that case, you believe this isn’t even worth talking about. However, the author acknowledges that it would have been better to include an amazing solution in their article; they just couldn’t come up with one. The author believes at least having the problem clarified will be a lot better than having not brought up the issue at all, and hopes their article can inspire others to do more thinking on the subject. Therefore, comments of the following form are invalid:
- “Why describe a problem and then say there is no good solution?”
- “Yes, modern life is lonely and alienating. But what are we supposed to do about it?”
- “Capitalism is flawed. Everyone knows that. But unless you have an alternative, talking about it is pointless.”
The “Title is Wrong” Caveat: The author wrote an amazing article. Perhaps you read it, perhaps you did not. Either way, you found a flaw in the title. The title, read literally and taken as the author’s entire position, is not wholly correct. However, the author hereby acknowledges that their title is not supposed to be a replacement for or tiny summary of their entire article, and exists mainly to help people decide whether they want to read the article or not. Therefore: ALL comments that could be made solely on the basis of the title are invalid.
- For example, on an article titled, “Learning is slower than you think”, the comment “Actually, learning is pretty fast…” is invalid.
The UR-CAVEAT: Even after reading all of these caveats, you still believe there is something the author has done wrong that is worth calling attention to. However, there exists in theory a reasonable caveat which would assuage your concerns and allow you to direct your attention instead to the meat of the article. The author hereby includes all of those caveats as well. Therefore, ALL comments that miss the point, are low-effort, are nitpicky and fussy, are unfair or uncharitable, or otherwise do not focus on the main thrust of the article or important details, are hereby invalid. There are infinite examples that could be listed, but here are just a few:
- “This article would have been better as a tweet.”
- “There’s probably a good point in here somewhere, but the snarky tone makes it unreadable.”
- “I can’t even engage with this because you never defined precisely what you mean by ‘AI’.”
- “Do you have any citations for any of this?”
- “This article really gives the impression of ‘guy thinking about something in an unfalsifiable way with no attempt to do research or have any expertise or gather any real information’.”

You don’t need to love everything about an article. An article of text is not an article of clothing. You read it once; you don’t wear it for years. It doesn’t need to be an exact fit. It’s better not to let the things you don’t like about it distract you from the main point.

After reading all these invalid examples of comments, you might be wondering, what can I comment? Isn’t this all a bit too limiting? Here are some ideas:

You can comment that the argument in the article is flawed or fallacious and explain how.
You can comment that the evidence the article relies on is faulty and explain why.
You can state the article is missing a larger, materially relevant point.
You can state there is a solution or explanation the author missed.
You can present an alternative position, with arguments of your own.
You can relate a story about your experience with the subject matter.
You can comment praisingly or critically about the quality of the article, as long as it doesn’t distract from the conversation and you don’t use the article’s quality as an argument about its validity.
You can ask a materially important clarifying question.
You can share some thoughts you’ve had recently on the same subject.
You can give a helpful suggestion. You can comment literally anything that doesn’t involve irrelevant, microscopic complaints that derail what could be a productive conversation.

And since we’re doing caveats: I hereby acknowledge that this list of caveats is incomplete, flawed, written in too aggressive a manner, and that I suck for having written it. I’ll also clarify that the example comments are made up. And by the way, if you’re thinking, “actually, some of these example comments could actually be valid in some contexts!”, no they’re not. You’re wrong and bad and you should go to hell. And feel free to reread Caveats #5 and #6 on the way down :)

P.S. I’m thinking about linking this at the top of my future posts with the link text caveat lector, and you’re free to do the same!

P.P.S I have now done so.

See my previous article, You People Keep Contradicting Yourselves!, for more on this subject. ↩

Secret Rich Text Copyer for Substack