If you were born after 1980 you'd find it hard to believe the authority that papers of record like the NYT and Washington Post used to have. Partly b… - Paul Graham

Many if not most philosophical controversies are artifacts of trying to using natural language at a higher resolution than it will support.

I think that, like species, languages will form evolutionary trees, with dead-ends branching off all over. We can see this happening already. Cobol, for all its sometime popularity, does not seem to have any intellectual descendants. It is an evolutionary dead-end — a Neanderthal language. I predict a similar fate for Java. People sometimes send me mail saying, “How can you say that Java won’t turn out to be a successful language? It’s already a successful language.” And I admit that it is, if you measure success by shelf space taken up by books on it, or by the number of undergrads who believe they have to learn it to get a job. When I say Java won’t turn out to be a successful language, I mean something more specific: that Java will turn out to be an evolutionary dead-end, like Cobol.

The word "screed" is a sign of intellectual dishonesty. In practice it means no more than "something someone wrote that I disagree with," but by hiding this in the noun you use to describe the work, you make it seem as if this were some intrinsic feature of it.