Agreed. Its tone is very off-putting. From the article:
> Not just wrong as in not perfect, but wrong as in wasting half, or more, of your performance.
I wish articles would move away from this use of 'wrong'. Neither of those definitions are what I understand when I read 'wrong'. If you mean sub-optimal than use that word instead. Feels like much of the rest of the article is built around this misused terminology.
Agreed. Its tone is very off-putting. From the article:
> Not just wrong as in not perfect, but wrong as in wasting half, or more, of your performance.
I wish articles would move away from this use of 'wrong'. Neither of those definitions are what I understand when I read 'wrong'. If you mean sub-optimal than use that word instead. Feels like much of the rest of the article is built around this misused terminology.