"More than 36,500 Iranians were killed by security forces during the January 8-9 crackdown on nationwide protests, making it the deadliest two-day protest massacre in history,"
>> And what's so special about books in particular, anyway? What's wrong with reading articles and webpages?
Nothing, really, but I suspect that is declining too. I read historical books mostly, some 4-5 per year. Like last time I ordered "Soldaten: On Fighting, Killing, and Dying, The Secret WWII Transcripts of German POWS", in English because unfortunately it wasn't yet translated in my native language. But other than that I still read printed magazines. One that my father used to read so I picked the habit from him and used to be weekly but now it's bi-monthly because ... fewer readers. And I read a ton of online articles.
But you can notice the repeating pattern: read, read, read. Because I got good at it waay before there was an alternative, and because of that, the alternative has supplanted but never replaced the original. But my kid? Never read anything in his life that wasn't forced upon him. And the whole new generation is like this. He can read because can't function in the modern world without it but reading as primary source of gathering information? No chance.
I suspect this gets us back to medieval times where there are a few erudites and lots of imbeciles, my son included.
You know it’s really strange when I think about it. I no longer feel motivated to read books mostly, but I could easily spend an hour or two a day reading HN comments and Reddit threads.
Although part of that I’m sure is that as I’m visually impaired, reading physical books is far more tiring than reading off a screen where I can make the text the exact size I want.
Used to be a voracious reader as a kid (though 99% non-fiction).
This is why Hackernews and all other social media are blocked on my phone which I now leave across the room all day long when at home, and at home when I go out a lot of times.
Now, I read the New Yorker which I had a pile of half read issues. There's one at the table where I eat, one in the loo, one on the couch, and when my brain gets tired of staring at the wall... I pick up a copy when I don't want to do anything particularly creative.
Finishing a good New Yorker article, or a book laying by my bed often expands my worldview, my vocabulary, and my understanding of current events. Reading a ton of comments online has never really produced that same experience even in a place like HackerNews which has (IMO) much higher quality comments than many places.
So you can get back into it! And it seems to be like riding a bike, very easy to get back into. And the more I read, the more I'm happy I'm reading.
For me, it's the realization of how much filler (tangents, embellishment, hyperbole, pretentiousness, ego, straight up BS, etc) is in long form content that makes it's really hard to make a commitment to anything new. Once you see it, it's ALL you see. I was rewatching some Feynman lectures this morning, and I couldn't get past it anymore. What I used to find engaging, was a major distraction. And the more I learn about stuff, the quicker I see when it's happening, even subjects I'm not familiar with.
This is a really interesting observation to me because it touches at something that I think is at risk of getting lost as the world leans further and further towards optimisation as a core goal. Get to the point, no deviations, transmit the information to me and on to the next.
I can objectively/rationally, see the appeal but I feel the world is a lesser place for it. There's a lack of something I can't quite articulate, maybe personality (not quite but something like that), that makes for a less fulfilling.
It's sort like Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath, which is one of the finest texts humanity has imo. And the best bit for me is, the turtle crossing the road. Yes, there's some symbolism, but its largely a pointless interlude; in the sense that in another version of the universe, there's an editor out there who would have cut that bit, and it wouldn't have affected the story too significantly. Yet something incredible would have been lost.
Symbolism is great, it just have to serve a purpose. Constantly insisting "this idea blows your mind" is not that, especially when it doesn't deliver, or it only "blew my mind" because a key component of the idea was withheld until the end, like a murder mystery.
Pop-sci / self-help I feel is particularly egregious in this regard. Like you could take the entirety of many self-help books and summarise them into a few bullet points.
Though having said that, if the ultimate goal of writing is to transfer one person’s experience of human thought to another, then the filler often makes sense. They’re trying to take you on the same mental journey that they went on. At least that’s the good-faith interpretation.
I think filler is also akin to the difference in experience between listening to an audiobook at 1x speed vs say 3x speed. The slower pace gives your brain time to work.
But I totally agree, once you know a bunch about a subject the filler becomes unnecessary.
1) The problem with teaching is that "filler" often isn't.
Teaching is art and not science in spite of what so many tech folks think. If I'm teaching a hard subject, I don't know a priori what will click with each student. I'm trying to give you multiple tools for you to try to use while working on problems to get you to your next level of understanding. Some of those tools are idiosyncratic to my experience and not in the textbook. Most of my suggestions are going to wind up being useless to a particular student, but I'm hoping that at least one of them connects properly.
For example, the biggest complaint of linear algebra students is "This is boring and doesn't have any use." Well, I can talk about how its used in graphics, but the mathematicians will call that filler. I can talk about solving differential equation systems for the engineers, but the CS students will call that filler. The instructor, of course, thinks all that stuff is filler and would rather get back to teaching the subject, but understands that getting people interested and enthusiastic is a part of the teaching process.
2) The "filler" part of "traditional" media is completely different for each person while "social" media filler is useless to everybody.
This is something that so many people don't seem to grasp. Each individual will fixate on and take something different from a book or lecture. That's good. As long as each part of media resonates and has a purpose with somebody consuming it, it's not "filler".
The problem is that "social" media rewards behaviors that create useless "filler". So, social media is in a war--people get more sensitive to ignoring useless filler; the social media sites ramp more aggressive garbage; people get more sensitive; lather, rinse, repeat.
The problem is that your social media "useless filler" pattern matcher learns to be super aggressive and classifies anything that doesn't immediately engage with you, personally and immediately as garbage. That's fine when doomscrolling; that's not fine when reading a book or listening to a lecture.
That's not to say that there aren't poor lectures or poor quality books. There very definitely are. And you should definitely leave those behind.
However, you need to turn those super aggressive filler filters off when an author or lecturer is genuinely trying to engage you in good faith. If an author or lecturer did the work, is well-prepared, and is making solid points and progress, you need give them the leeway to do their job.
>> If I send it at 3 PM, it looks like normal work hours. If I send it at 8:47 PM, it looks like I'm going above and beyond.
I do the same thing but the exact textbook reverse opposite. Granted, I'm a techie / regular developer who makes 1/3rd of the IT director in cause, but can't complain, I'm definitely not starving.
So here's my version (sometimes):
>> I finish a lot of work at 3 AM.
>> I send it at 8:47 AM.
>> Same document. Different optics.
>> If I send it at 3 AM, it looks like like I'm going above and beyond. If I send it at 8:47 AM, it looks normal work hours.
> short of major algorithmic breakthroughs I am not convinced the global demand for GPUs will drop any time soon
>> Or, you know, when LLMs don't pay off.
Heh, exactly the observation that a fanatic religious believer cannot possibly foresee. "We need more churches! More priests! Until a breakthrough in praying technique will be achieved I don't foresee less demand for religious devotion!" Nobody foresaw Nietzsche and the decline in blind faith.
But then again, like an atheist back in the day, the furious zealots would burn me at the stake if they could, for saying this. Sadly no longer possible so let them downvotes pour instead!
>> “The only, absolute and best friend a man has, in this selfish world, the only one that will not betray or deny him, is his dog.”
Well, this is far from absolute, isn't it? :) There's a fair number of vicious attacks of a dog on his owner. Oftentimes pitbulls (are they even dogs or rather "creatures"?!), but other breeds do it too. So ... nothing is absolute :P
For another example of betrayal, one of the cronies in Katherine the
Great's court always gave a dog to his girlfriends whenever he started
a new relationship. Then if the dog ever greeted some other guy
familiarly, he inferred he was falling out of favor. He probably
learned that trick when someone did it to him, because he would let
the other guy know how he was rumbled before graciously bowing out.
I've gotten "BEWARE OF DOG!" pitbulls and rottweilers to befriend me simply by speaking kindly to them, and then over a period of days raising that to handsniffs, then petting.
Misanthropic dogs are taught that behavior, which contradicts 10,000+ years of training. They don't enjoy being assholes.
This is not to say dogs aren't naturally barky and suspicious of strangers; that is also part of their millenia of training. Lots of nice people are also suspicious of strangers. But aggressively attacking people is basically psychotic behavior for a social animal that considers humans part of its society.
The quote doesn't insist all dogs are infinitely loyal.
Your disgusting prejudice aside, I've never met a pitbull in public that wasn't sweet and loving - which reinforces my suspicion that the real problem with them is the sort of psychotic, uncaring owner they attract.
When I was young, it was Dobermans that were demonized, and likewise the dog of choice for assholes who abused them as mere security devices.
As kids in a rural area in Eastern Europe, summer "vacation" was sure to be filled with "fun" farm work. I recall being amused at hearing one of my friends towards the end of the summer say: "man, I can't wait for school to begin, so I can get some rest".
Too bad that this is also a first time in history, following massacre of protesters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_and_execution_of_Nicolae...
reply