Why do I really need to any of that? I've written tens of thousands of words for you, for free, etc.
From my perspective, catching flak for picayune errors is a powerful motivation-sapping force. I realize nobody likes typos, but in revising these things for publication I generally go over them N-1 times, where N is the number that would make me delete everything and replace it with a 410 Gone page.
The fact that some NPR person is afraid of spiders makes me happy that I used that image.
Finally, you should have written "turned them off", not "turned them of". See? Not so easy.
Even Yehudi Menuhin had his critics, and I'm sure none of them played the violin close to the level where he was. So don't sweat it and please don't delete anything, it's better writing than just about any in mainstream media.
This is one of the reasons publishing a blog via GitHub Pages is so nice: somebody wants to do copy-editing for you, they can go through the work of creating a pull request, and all you have to do is click the merge button.
For what it's worth, I love your articles, and merely wanted to point out the error as a bit of help, with the thought that I'd want to crowdsource fixes for my articles too.
Granted, "need" may overstate the case. I've revised my comment above on that point and the typo (keyboard issues are making those somewhat more frequent).
But: I consider writing as a communication done, generally, for the reader's benefit. Not a novel viewpoint. HN featured a bit from Vonnegut on that point yesterday. Among his points:
Pity the readers: They have to identify thousands of little marks on paper, and make sense of them immediately
I guess I belong to the school which says that a thing worth doing is worth doing well. I try to fix bugs in my code, I try to write clearly, I try to be accurate in what I say and acknowledge errors.
And yeah, sometimes I get really annoyed at nitpickers who seem to have lost the thread:
But it's a very small point frequently, one that can make the difference between a good (or even really good) piece, and one that's truly epic. Which on a site such as HN which focuses in large part on executing both technical and conceptual brilliance, seems a good candidate for a general community value.
And yes, editing (especially for professional publication) is a sort of penny-ante death. I've been watching authors Charlie Stross and Ksenia Anske grouse about it lately on Ello. It's a bit of a pain for my own stuff. But obvious glaring shit? I'll fix it if possible.
Sure, there's the Zen ideal of imperfection as its own perfection. And there can be other reasons for errors and faults to creep in or be unfixable (HN locks comemnts from further editing, something that leaves me cringing frequently).
How about for starters: if you have boring notes to offer on someone's web page, send it to them privately, instead of posting it for the approval of the whole community.
Sometimes we have things to say about sites that are relevant to lots of people. But these notes not so much.
I'm probably not great about this either and would be happy if someone took the time to call me out for it.
I've actually done that, several times in this case - 2-3 attempts, about the maximum number I'll generally try. I prefer not to be a complete pest. Be careful in what you presume.
I thought I'd make one more attempt online now when the opportunity presented itself.
And while I try not to flagrantly call out errors on people's stuff, if I see them I'll note them as quietly as possible. On platforms that support it (e.g., G+) that includes a "delete this comment" note, frequently.
I really like Maciej's work. I'd posted a link to "Human Face" just yesterday:
From my perspective, catching flak for picayune errors is a powerful motivation-sapping force. I realize nobody likes typos, but in revising these things for publication I generally go over them N-1 times, where N is the number that would make me delete everything and replace it with a 410 Gone page.
The fact that some NPR person is afraid of spiders makes me happy that I used that image.
Finally, you should have written "turned them off", not "turned them of". See? Not so easy.