It's amazing how the article did such an incredible job building a deep understanding of how the airfoil works, yet you managed to completely miss that and find something to so small to critique.
To be clear, the article was amazing. That has already been said multiple times by others so if I left a comment saing just that I would contribute nothing. Besides, the size of the criticism (in this case small, as you point out) is an even better measure of quality than number of fawning comments.
I also publish articles (though nowhere near as good or ambitious as this one) online and the comments I look forward to most are the constructively critical ones. They are the reason I publish in the first place.
My only goal of giving and receiving constructive criticism is to improve our collective understanding of the world. There's nothing sinister or ill-natured about it as another commenter suggested.
(This extends to comments as well. I really appreciate you prompting me to check my tone.)
This made me think of how I hate Youtube comments. All the high-fiving positive ones end up on the top and not the ones that provide an opportunity to learn or think critically.
I think many of these kinds of comments are driven by a form of insecurity. They subconsciously wish they had written the article and are envious of the attention the author is receiving… so they find whatever small nitpick they can in order to tear it down.
Sorry for my low-value comment, but I think it is appropriate here. Doing a psychoanalysis of OP does not really add to the discussion meaningfully.
Same applies to parent comment.
