Adrian (a.delete@this.acm.org) on May 22, 2021 9:18 am wrote:
[snip]
> I did not have a reason to reply to your post, because I mostly agree with your analysis.
>
> I just want to mention that I appreciate when you spend significant time to write a lengthy analysis,
> even if I seldom reply to them, because I usually do not have reasons to disagree. So there are people
> who read your posts, despite their length, even when they do not comment on them :-)

Again, thank you. I might write a little even if no one read my writing because thinking can be fun and writing draws out thinking, but being told that my posts are read and positively received (that I am "contributing to society") is quite encouraging. I should put more effort into organizing my writings; my inclinations toward tangents and cross-references do urge more careful organization than more linear writing such as "story telling" and logical demonstration.

I so appreciate the abundance of knowledge and especially rationales presented here (such as your comments on process technology and physical design). I do suspect — based on the usual high ratio of responders to receivers and a few comments from lurkers that show themselves occasionally — that there are many lurkers who benefit from such content.

I sometimes wish I could mark posts as informative, agree, etc. to give a nod to posts/posters (posting a one word response to every particularly impactful post would be disruptive), but such marking systems are very challenging to design.