Mostly the Internet likes to nitpick, rant, lie, pick fights, offer incorrect (but hostile) criticism, carefully misinterpret any replies, change the subject, attack strawmen, mindlessly waffle, and explain at length (but vaguely) how its unpublished theory falsifies your work.

The Internet's capacity for noise generation is infinite. Life, in contrast, is short.

Edgecase prefers that the Internet indulge its main interests elsewhere. Comments are therefore non-real-time and are 100% moderated. The goal of the site is to seek insight / utility / interest / permanence, and (so far) a slow, manual, moderated comment system has been quite sufficient to handle the workload.







If you:
- work with someone at Edgecase
- have been sent an article by someone at Edgecase
you do not have to create an account in order to comment. Send your comment to the relevant person.

Otherwise, in order to comment on an article, you must first create an Edgecase account. Please go to the following page:
How to create an Edgecase account
After you have created an account, Edgecase will contact you to discuss your comment.

Your comment can be plain text. If you want to use formatting (bold, italic, etc), please see the following page:
Edgecase comment formatting







Comments on Edgecase are not chat lines. They are more like letters to a journal. However, they do not have to be long. A single well-written sentence is fine, if it makes a good point.

A comment should be interesting, useful, or entertaining. Comments that do not meet this standard will not be published.

If your comment contains good material but is poorly written, Edgecase may offer to restructure / rewrite it. If it is spectacularly poorly written, Edgecase may offer to restructure / rewrite it for a fee.

Guidelines:
- Rhetoric for its own sake will usually not be published, unless it is particularly entertaining.
- A comment that corrects a single typo is only slightly useful. A comment that attempts to list and correct all typos in a particular article is much more useful.
- Idle conversation or small talk is usually not interesting, particularly when read some years after initial publication.
- Comments on software (perhaps including example code) are likely to be considered useful.