<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>simonw</author><text>It&amp;#x27;s the text version of a talk. Those are the slides. I can forgive that.&lt;p&gt;This was published in 2015 - since then the loading=&amp;quot;lazy&amp;quot; attribute has gained widespread browser support. I&amp;#x27;ve used that myself for some of my talk-as-blog-post pieces, eg &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;simonwillison.net&amp;#x2F;2022&amp;#x2F;Nov&amp;#x2F;26&amp;#x2F;productivity&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;simonwillison.net&amp;#x2F;2022&amp;#x2F;Nov&amp;#x2F;26&amp;#x2F;productivity&amp;#x2F;&lt;/a&gt;</text><parent_chain><item><author>defanor</author><text>As the article&amp;#x27;s author, I like to rant about articles ranting about bloat being bloated themselves, but here&amp;#x27;s an opportunity to rant about an article ranting about rants about bloat being bloated, being bloated itself! The page has 1 MB of rather unnecessary illustrations (many of which are just amusing pictures), which is larger than most of the books (as it compares other pages to books).&lt;p&gt;It is surprisingly common for content to contradict presentation in such articles. Well, it is mentioned in the article already, but still strange how common it seems to be.&lt;p&gt;Edit: though this is not exactly an article, but rather a presentation&amp;#x27;s&amp;#x2F;talk&amp;#x27;s &amp;quot;text&amp;quot; version, and the illustrations are slides. So it probably wasn&amp;#x27;t meant to look&amp;#x2F;be quite like that.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>The Website Obesity Crisis (2015)</title><url>https://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>pohl</author><text>Just so no one assumes that’s all it’s about — the critique of bloated articles about bloat is really only the introduction. It’s worth reading beyond that. The writing is delicious.</text><parent_chain><item><author>defanor</author><text>As the article&amp;#x27;s author, I like to rant about articles ranting about bloat being bloated themselves, but here&amp;#x27;s an opportunity to rant about an article ranting about rants about bloat being bloated, being bloated itself! The page has 1 MB of rather unnecessary illustrations (many of which are just amusing pictures), which is larger than most of the books (as it compares other pages to books).&lt;p&gt;It is surprisingly common for content to contradict presentation in such articles. Well, it is mentioned in the article already, but still strange how common it seems to be.&lt;p&gt;Edit: though this is not exactly an article, but rather a presentation&amp;#x27;s&amp;#x2F;talk&amp;#x27;s &amp;quot;text&amp;quot; version, and the illustrations are slides. So it probably wasn&amp;#x27;t meant to look&amp;#x2F;be quite like that.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>The Website Obesity Crisis (2015)</title><url>https://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm</url></story>