Great response.
> Teach me instead of such tone for I am interested in learning
Here are some notes:
Run on sentences and lack of punctuation make your writing hard to follow; brevity can be effective.
For each sentence, choose a subject, verb, predicate, proposition, etc. to form a single clause, but don't compound multiple such clauses into a single sentence. Break sentences up with punctuation so that the eye rests more easily when scanning. Eye fatigue is a real thing that good writers know how to manage. Contractions can also help clean up the noise.
It's okay to occasionally have compound sentences, such as this one, but too many of those leave your reader's head spinning.
It's fine and encouraged to write your initial draft in stream-of-consciousness form as you have, but an editing pass would make a worthwhile difference for slightly more effort. You do well at breaking up ideas and sentences into new paragraphs, but within those paragraphs it can be hard to keep up.
As an example, your first sentence could be rewritten from
This is really not the type of legacy that I want to leave behind on hackernews but then again, I have been vocal that I just write what I think. Literally. It has its flaws but I am not sugar coating it.
to
This isn't the type of legacy I want to leave behind on Hacker News. I prefer to write in a stream-of-consciousness style. This approach has its flaws, but it feels more natural to me.
Notice I trimmed some unnecessary words such as "really", split up a sentence, removed an unnecessary conjunction, added a comma before the "but" since the sentence contains two independent clauses.
I replaced "I am not sugar coating it" with what I feel is closer to your intended communication. "I'm not sugar coating it" is directed towards the reader and might be interpreted as antagonistic, whereas "it feels more natural to me" is directed towards yourself and can't be misconstrued.
I also compacted the phrase, "but then again, I have been vocal that I just write what I think" to "I prefer to write in a stream-of-consciousness style". The original phrase turns the reader around a bit, it takes a moment to derive intent.
The second phrase reads in a balanced way, `subject -> predicate -> verb -> preposition -> adjective -> noun`. One main clause and a complement, compared to three entire separate clauses in the original phrase. The second phrase flows down well hierarchically, and is easy to follow, while the original phrase turns the reader around and causes real, measurable fatigue when interpreting your communication.
Does this help?