> but I don't think the authors spend too much time worrying "what if an unqualified person reads this and misinterprets it due to a lack of basic medical knowledge?"
1) You don’t sound too sure about this. Your previous comment sounded like speculation also. Do you actually read these blogs and/or journals?
2) Again, you’re making comparisons that aren’t equivalent. Your argument fails when you replace “unqualified person” with “unqualified target person”. My pizza delivery driver is not reading dev blogs. The junior and senior engineers on my team over the years who passed 5 rounds of interviews yet still make simple but devastating mistakes are reading these blogs.
> lex specialis
1) In your previous comment, you said that medical and law journals _don’t_ explain every basic little thing. And now you provided a quote where the law blog is explicitly explaining a very basic thing even to their _qualified target audience_. If “most readers” already know something, then what’s the point of re-explaining it? You’re proving my point instead.
2) Another comparison that isn’t equivalent. Even if an “unqualified” person were to read a _professional_ law or medical blog/journal, what’s the worst that could happen? Nothing.
The answer to that question above will definitely change if we’re talking about _nonprofessional_ content (e.g. TikTok law and medical advice). Frankly, more dev blogs veer towards the “unprofessional” side than “professional”.
