Earlier quoted context omitted.
My pet peeve on HN is people writing comments like they're gonna be peer reviewed. Either the less common words that they use are obviously out of place like someone just discovered a thesaurus ( conflated is my favourite example), or it's consistently formal and quasi-academic so I have to put extra effort into reading it. Either way it just makes the authour sound like a pretentions wanker.
> My pet peeve on HN is people writing comments like they're gonna be peer reviewed. I consider myself guilty of doing this, but that's because (most of the time) I actually proof-read my comments before posting them, and consider whether they provide a useful addition to the discussion. If one of my comments look like they're going to be peer-reviewed, it's because they're self-reviewed, and you don't get to see the…
You could've written something like this instead:
I'm guilty of this, but that's because I self-review and consider whether I'm actually contributing to the discussion before posting. You don't get to see vast majority of un-submitted comments because they either didn't add anything useful or they weren't clear enough.
Same message, but much easier to read.