I disagree. I read the article because it nudged me, even though I probably don't really need to know the contents right this moment.
If the title had been "What some coders may need to know about gamma, but definitely no worries if not"... I probably wouldn't have read it. To me, the anxious muddle of qualifiers would have suggested a lack of confidence and focus that would bode poorly for the clarity and helpfulness of the contents.
When people are so insecure about their abilities that they feel threatened by the notion that they may not know something they should know, I think that's something for them to work on within themselves, not something the world needs to tiptoe around to keep them comfortable.
As an aside, I have occasionally had coworkers who have had important things to say, but they have forced me to struggle way harder than necessary to understand what those things are, because they are terrified of explicitly saying that their work revealed someone else's assumptions or practices to be flawed. This is especially an affliction of young women, who often seem to think that it is their (and everyone's) moral obligation to be exquisitely sensitive to all possible negative ways that a communication could be perceived, no matter how fragile or unreasonable. As a result, they are morally against directly correcting anyone else's ideas, and will freak out if anyone else prefers to be more direct.
While I agree about the tiptoe part I have an instinctive negative reaction to the nudge argument.
I do not see a clear difference between "What every X should know about Y", "Programmers hate this one weird gamma trick" and "top 10 crazy gamma hacks".
Sure, it might make more people read the article, but that is just clickbait.
My point was mostly that the title was clickbaity and (IMO) incorrent. There are some things that I think all programmers should know, but it's not much at all. I just wish HN level articles would be more descriptive in their titles. I don't need the nudge, I'll read what interests me.
If the title had been "What some coders may need to know about gamma, but definitely no worries if not"... I probably wouldn't have read it. To me, the anxious muddle of qualifiers would have suggested a lack of confidence and focus that would bode poorly for the clarity and helpfulness of the contents.
When people are so insecure about their abilities that they feel threatened by the notion that they may not know something they should know, I think that's something for them to work on within themselves, not something the world needs to tiptoe around to keep them comfortable.
As an aside, I have occasionally had coworkers who have had important things to say, but they have forced me to struggle way harder than necessary to understand what those things are, because they are terrified of explicitly saying that their work revealed someone else's assumptions or practices to be flawed. This is especially an affliction of young women, who often seem to think that it is their (and everyone's) moral obligation to be exquisitely sensitive to all possible negative ways that a communication could be perceived, no matter how fragile or unreasonable. As a result, they are morally against directly correcting anyone else's ideas, and will freak out if anyone else prefers to be more direct.