Jesus. All of the classic hallmarks of a shitpost. 1) Pick an ancient piece of human wisdom to shit on. 2) Make up some phony criticism. 3) Don't actually offer

Jesus. All of the classic hallmarks of a shitpost. 1) Pick an ancient piece of human wisdom to shit on. 2) Make up some phony criticism. 3) Don't actually offer any solutions to your phony problem. I'll spare you the trouble of reading further, either in this article or in my subsequent diatribe. The insight offered here is: "People don't absorb information perfectly, it requires effort and work to learn from reading." >So let’s reframe the question. Rather than “how might we make books actually work reliably,” we can ask: How might we design mediums which do the job of a non-fiction book—but which actually work reliably? Hey, how about framing this as "Communication and writing is hard", or "Language is full of ambiguity, human knowledge is always incomplete, human memory is limited, metaphysics fails to accurately model reality, period, so the whole project is fucked," or "people in general lack viable epistemologies", etc.? Hey, how about writing this article cogently first, before you go shitting on all of literature? On the other hand, this is a great study in Silicon Valley bullshit. This guy is going to "disrupt" the way we read, by somehow inventing a new way to write that no one has ever tried before. Good luck with that.