4 ms·
I guess I don't have a formal proof for you, but in general the more characters/words a response contains the more significant, relevant, important, consequenti
by mox1 9y ago
I guess I don't have a formal proof for you, but in general the more characters/words a response contains the more significant, relevant, important, consequential, telling or material it is. Of course you can find counter examples, but considering the New York times still publishes articles and hasn't moved fully to Tweeting (yet anyway) I would say more often than not it's difficult to convey or articulate things correctly in 140 characters.
If a communication method is "low-stakes,informal and brief" how often do you expect to be meaningful? To me those things are diametrically opposed to me.
- jerrylives 9y ago>but in general the more characters/words a response contains the more significant, relevant, important, consequential, telling or material it is Yep because the longest books are the most important...lol fuck outta here There are NYT articles that are just tweet embeds with some of their language around it to make it seem like the journos did work. Hell half of their articles about the Trump white house are tweets for pols. And again, the 140 character limit is for public tweets only. DMs can be very long and involved. >If a communication method is "low-stakes,informal and brief" how often do you expect to be meaningful? Lol dude you must be the worst to work with. So you can't derive any meaning unless it's high stakes, formal, and involved? Meaningful can be "Derived value" from - so if you tweet at a dev "hey is it possible to do X in your library" and they just reply "No, you can't sorry"...was that not meaningful? Did they not just save you a few hours of digging through code with a short reply?
- sctb 9y agoPlease stop now. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html