The sentiment you've expressed here seems common on HackerNews, and I commend you for taking the time to lay it out with such clarity and detail.
I disagree with you in part. I don't think that the two groups you've painted are discrete, much less distinct. Of the descriptions you've given, I fit much more clearly in the former (I spend far more time digging around old Github repos and fantasizing about Arduino projects to try with my soon-to-be-born child).
However, the technical detail of this article is not lost on me. The authors have gone to painstaking lengths to template the picture of a flashbang incident and fill it in with instances (shown in aside#injuries). They have produced an informative graphic map showing a specific technical detail of the policy implementation in Little Rock (the exact locations and a demographic element).
The prose itself is replete with other technical details, such as the types of injuries suffered and how they were treated and the specific legislation being considered in light of these events.
These details may not describe anything electronic or even futuristic, but they are technical in the sense that they're measurable and require illumination via intense study in order to understand and present.
Just like an interpreter optimization or a new design pattern, the various calls to action need to be sufficiently compelling as to motivate a critical mass to call for change, and so supporters (and perhaps opponents) have gathered around them.
I'm increasingly convinced that "technical" and "political" are just words that we use to couch "familiar" and "controversial."
I do agree that more technical details of how flashbangs work (especially what, if any, tactical advantages they actually confer and how we know that) are desirable.
I disagree with you in part. I don't think that the two groups you've painted are discrete, much less distinct. Of the descriptions you've given, I fit much more clearly in the former (I spend far more time digging around old Github repos and fantasizing about Arduino projects to try with my soon-to-be-born child).
However, the technical detail of this article is not lost on me. The authors have gone to painstaking lengths to template the picture of a flashbang incident and fill it in with instances (shown in aside#injuries). They have produced an informative graphic map showing a specific technical detail of the policy implementation in Little Rock (the exact locations and a demographic element).
The prose itself is replete with other technical details, such as the types of injuries suffered and how they were treated and the specific legislation being considered in light of these events.
These details may not describe anything electronic or even futuristic, but they are technical in the sense that they're measurable and require illumination via intense study in order to understand and present.
Just like an interpreter optimization or a new design pattern, the various calls to action need to be sufficiently compelling as to motivate a critical mass to call for change, and so supporters (and perhaps opponents) have gathered around them.
I'm increasingly convinced that "technical" and "political" are just words that we use to couch "familiar" and "controversial."
I do agree that more technical details of how flashbangs work (especially what, if any, tactical advantages they actually confer and how we know that) are desirable.