4 ms·
tl;dr. Excellent first few chapters (which deserve the high praise and possibly are the cause of all the hype), gets less and less interesting. At some point, I
by muro 8y ago
tl;dr. Excellent first few chapters (which deserve the high praise and possibly are the cause of all the hype), gets less and less interesting. At some point, I dreaded returning to it and gave up.
- lolc 8y agoDid you sum up your experience reading the book? Or did you try to sum up the critique we're discussing here? If it's the latter you failed.
- zirkonit 8y ago"tl;dr" here actually means "Too long; didn't read", as in, GP's result of reading the book, and not the "here is the summary" we usually tend to associate with the abbreviation.
- lettucehead 8y agothanks - that was helpful to know
- muro 8y agoThe book. Apologies, you are right, should have been clearer. I think the other comments at the time were also about the book, not the article.
- honoredb 8y agoSo now we have to consider the specter of someone writing an overly verbose review of something that reduces to "tl;dr". Someone might summarize the review by writing "tl;dr: tl;dr". Or they might express the same thing, but overly verbosely, so someone might summarize their response by writing "tl;dr: tl;dr: tl;dr". In general, if N "tl;dr"s is a valid sentiment, and any valid sentiment can be expressed overly verbosely, then N+1 "tl;dr"s are a valid sentiment, so by induction any positive integer repetition of "tl;dr"s is valid. However, there exists some number L such that L repetitions of "tl;dr" is itself too long to express the necessary point, and someone who didn't read it would want a summary, the most succinct of which would presumably be "tl;dr: tl;dr nested L times". This meta "tl;dr" itself might be expressed overly verbosely, of course...
- muro 8y agoWell done. Shame it's buried under N comments.