5 ms·

Is there a TL;DR version? Before you downvote, I don't want to invest hours into reading something when 80% of the value can probably be summarized into one par

Is there a TL;DR version? Before you downvote, I don't want to invest hours into reading something when 80% of the value can probably be summarized into one paragraph. BTW, I wonder how many of the people who upvoted this have actually read it.

modzu 6y ago
title is missing the year (it's 1962) -- he's talking about the computer and internet. fyi doug invented the mouse, among other things..
gjvc 6y ago
I have never read quite such a lazy comment on HN. Do your own research, instead of grifting off other people's opinions.
- airhead969 6y ago
  As a minor nit, the way it was said was a bit harsh, but it seemed to be done in the spirit of necessary, tough love. I'm appalled by intellectual laziness and codependency these days. We have a mostly illiterate, ignorant, distracted, atomized society that doesn't read, doesn't dig into primary or even secondary sources, doesn't have critical thinking skills, is easily-manipulated by advertising, mainstream news, and social media, doesn't communicate in-person that much, and more and more people feel entitled to be spoon-fed answers and information like helpless chicks tweeting for a worm (the definition of codependency). Only by more people reading, learning, researching, thinking, and doing for themselves more often can these trends be reversed. PSA: Turn off the screens and read a respectable nonfiction book more often, please. "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." - English proverb
  - gjvc 6y ago
    well said, and I would add that the acceptance of the "TL;DR" "culture" is cancerous in tacitly encouraging such laziness.
    - airhead969 6y ago
      I think we should also be able to summarize but not exclusively or reaching a point of cargo-culting blindly because only one book priest can read. Against oversimplification: There are nuances and details that are often lost as the memetic game of "telephone" gets played and introduces mutations. Also, intellectual dilettancy, whereby people no longer master any other details other than utilitarian ones; history gets lost, anecdotes get lost, and so forth. Writers should aim for concision where possible, but not skimp on evidence, rationale, or interesting anecdotes or analysis. Einstein said something about "irreducible basic elements" but never said "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Time and attention are valuable, but the essence shouldn't be sacrificed on the altar of expediency.
- RivieraKid 6y ago
  I honestly don't get this "you should read it" fetish. I actually spend a lot of time reading. But if I have, say 4 hours per day allocated to reading, I want to choose material that gives me the highest possible value per minute of reading. You're basically saying that the optimal learning and information consumption strategy is to always either read (or skim) the whole thing or ignore it. I disagree, the optimal strategy includes reading TL;DRs if available because they give you good value per unit of time or energy and they give you information whether it's worth to read the whole thing.
  - pwdisswordfish0 6y ago
    (Interestingly enough, Doug would agree with you. The irony of those condemning you is multi-layered. There's the first-order irony that those doing the condemnation probably haven't themselves read the thing they are upset with you about. The second-order irony is that the overall thrust of their clamor is directly opposed to the ideas that Doug expresses -- if only they knew it by reading for themselves...)
Guthur 6y ago
The conclusion is not a bad place to start https://www.dougengelbart.org/content/view/138/#6 https://www.dougengelbart.org/content/view/138/#6 If I was to add my own spin to the problem outlined, I think it would be one of information and organisation. If we can significantly improve the bandwidth of information flow between individuals and groups, and then more efficiently organised larger groups towards a singular task we could achieve many things. Some groups do achieve great things but it's not clear to me that we've codified how this can be achieved and/or identified what is required for such success.
justin66 6y ago
If the part of your brain responsible for reading things got shot off in the war, the smart move would be to find and watch the “Mother of all Demos” video in its entirety. It is how most people are introduced to Englebart’s ideas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mother_of_All_Demos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mother_of_All_Demos
- airhead969 6y ago
  Theirs was definitely shot-off in The Great War. The only plausible excuses for not reading would be disabilities such as reading (lexical / comprehension) and/or attention. Dyslexia would be a tough one, as well as severe ADHD. I happen to have the latter but still forcibly plow through books. It is good to have well-constructed readers to summarize and discuss implications of subject matter, but not as primary material, only to ensure mastery of it.
  - RivieraKid 6y ago
    It wasn't, I read a lot, I just think it's really stupid and suboptimal to limit your learning and information consumption strategy to either fully reading (or skimming) long texts or ignoring them. I mean, why not spend <1 minute reading a TL;DR when it can sometimes give you most of the value and if not, provide you with information whether it's worth reading the whole thing. It seems like a good deal, why avoid it? I'd rather spend my time reading stuff thay has a higher expected value (e.g. a book about macroeconomics with great reviews if I'm interested in that topic) rather than random long texts on HN that can turn out to be complete garbage.
    - justin66 6y ago
      Englebart’s is a pretty good example of work you’ll want to spend some time exploring on your own if you can, simply because it’s important and you shouldn’t fully trust a typical summary of his ideas. For example, plenty of people watch the demo I mentioned above and spend all their time marveling at the invention of the mouse, or some other detail of the hardware, rather than taking in what was really being explored by the users of the hardware in terms of human/computer and human/human interaction.
082349872349872 6y ago
Hours should suffice for hundreds of pages. TFA is much shorter. If you insist upon having a tl;dr, it has its own: https://www.dougengelbart.org/content/view/138/#5a2 https://www.dougengelbart.org/content/view/138/#5a2
- waterhouse 6y ago
  For what it's worth, wc tells me that the main text of the OP is about 44,500 words, and a web search suggests that the average adult reads 250-300 words per minute, which yields about 2.5-3.0 hours of reading time.
  - 082349872349872 6y ago
    Good point! I don't think HN is catering for the average adult, however. A college student 500+ wpm is what I'd had in mind, and that along with the 131 pdf pages both suggest something around an hour to me. (I didn't remember it being that long from both times I've read it, but I guess I found the thesis interesting enough that the time passed quickly?) (Something else that I haven't seen pointed in this thread is that people with whose english is an L2 may legitimately be slower than in their L1.)

modzu 6y ago

title is missing the year (it's 1962) -- he's talking about the computer and internet. fyi doug invented the mouse, among other things..

gjvc 6y ago

I have never read quite such a lazy comment on HN. Do your own research, instead of grifting off other people's opinions.

airhead969 6y ago
As a minor nit, the way it was said was a bit harsh, but it seemed to be done in the spirit of necessary, tough love. I'm appalled by intellectual laziness and codependency these days. We have a mostly illiterate, ignorant, distracted, atomized society that doesn't read, doesn't dig into primary or even secondary sources, doesn't have critical thinking skills, is easily-manipulated by advertising, mainstream news, and social media, doesn't communicate in-person that much, and more and more people feel entitled to be spoon-fed answers and information like helpless chicks tweeting for a worm (the definition of codependency). Only by more people reading, learning, researching, thinking, and doing for themselves more often can these trends be reversed. PSA: Turn off the screens and read a respectable nonfiction book more often, please. "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." - English proverb
- gjvc 6y ago
  well said, and I would add that the acceptance of the "TL;DR" "culture" is cancerous in tacitly encouraging such laziness.
  - airhead969 6y ago
    I think we should also be able to summarize but not exclusively or reaching a point of cargo-culting blindly because only one book priest can read. Against oversimplification: There are nuances and details that are often lost as the memetic game of "telephone" gets played and introduces mutations. Also, intellectual dilettancy, whereby people no longer master any other details other than utilitarian ones; history gets lost, anecdotes get lost, and so forth. Writers should aim for concision where possible, but not skimp on evidence, rationale, or interesting anecdotes or analysis. Einstein said something about "irreducible basic elements" but never said "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Time and attention are valuable, but the essence shouldn't be sacrificed on the altar of expediency.
RivieraKid 6y ago
I honestly don't get this "you should read it" fetish. I actually spend a lot of time reading. But if I have, say 4 hours per day allocated to reading, I want to choose material that gives me the highest possible value per minute of reading. You're basically saying that the optimal learning and information consumption strategy is to always either read (or skim) the whole thing or ignore it. I disagree, the optimal strategy includes reading TL;DRs if available because they give you good value per unit of time or energy and they give you information whether it's worth to read the whole thing.
- pwdisswordfish0 6y ago
  (Interestingly enough, Doug would agree with you. The irony of those condemning you is multi-layered. There's the first-order irony that those doing the condemnation probably haven't themselves read the thing they are upset with you about. The second-order irony is that the overall thrust of their clamor is directly opposed to the ideas that Doug expresses -- if only they knew it by reading for themselves...)

Guthur 6y ago

The conclusion is not a bad place to start https://www.dougengelbart.org/content/view/138/#6 https://www.dougengelbart.org/content/view/138/#6 If I was to add my own spin to the problem outlined, I think it would be one of information and organisation. If we can significantly improve the bandwidth of information flow between individuals and groups, and then more efficiently organised larger groups towards a singular task we could achieve many things. Some groups do achieve great things but it's not clear to me that we've codified how this can be achieved and/or identified what is required for such success.

justin66 6y ago

If the part of your brain responsible for reading things got shot off in the war, the smart move would be to find and watch the “Mother of all Demos” video in its entirety. It is how most people are introduced to Englebart’s ideas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mother_of_All_Demos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mother_of_All_Demos

airhead969 6y ago
Theirs was definitely shot-off in The Great War. The only plausible excuses for not reading would be disabilities such as reading (lexical / comprehension) and/or attention. Dyslexia would be a tough one, as well as severe ADHD. I happen to have the latter but still forcibly plow through books. It is good to have well-constructed readers to summarize and discuss implications of subject matter, but not as primary material, only to ensure mastery of it.
- RivieraKid 6y ago
  It wasn't, I read a lot, I just think it's really stupid and suboptimal to limit your learning and information consumption strategy to either fully reading (or skimming) long texts or ignoring them. I mean, why not spend <1 minute reading a TL;DR when it can sometimes give you most of the value and if not, provide you with information whether it's worth reading the whole thing. It seems like a good deal, why avoid it? I'd rather spend my time reading stuff thay has a higher expected value (e.g. a book about macroeconomics with great reviews if I'm interested in that topic) rather than random long texts on HN that can turn out to be complete garbage.
  - justin66 6y ago
    Englebart’s is a pretty good example of work you’ll want to spend some time exploring on your own if you can, simply because it’s important and you shouldn’t fully trust a typical summary of his ideas. For example, plenty of people watch the demo I mentioned above and spend all their time marveling at the invention of the mouse, or some other detail of the hardware, rather than taking in what was really being explored by the users of the hardware in terms of human/computer and human/human interaction.

082349872349872 6y ago

Hours should suffice for hundreds of pages. TFA is much shorter. If you insist upon having a tl;dr, it has its own: https://www.dougengelbart.org/content/view/138/#5a2 https://www.dougengelbart.org/content/view/138/#5a2

waterhouse 6y ago
For what it's worth, wc tells me that the main text of the OP is about 44,500 words, and a web search suggests that the average adult reads 250-300 words per minute, which yields about 2.5-3.0 hours of reading time.
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  Good point! I don't think HN is catering for the average adult, however. A college student 500+ wpm is what I'd had in mind, and that along with the 131 pdf pages both suggest something around an hour to me. (I didn't remember it being that long from both times I've read it, but I guess I found the thesis interesting enough that the time passed quickly?) (Something else that I haven't seen pointed in this thread is that people with whose english is an L2 may legitimately be slower than in their L1.)