3 ms·

Browsing doesn't scale to the amount of content now available. The selection at your local bookstore and blockbuster was also the result of a less sophisticate

• drewcoo 5y ago
  The point is not scaling in the way I think you mean. The point is that lossy, messy, less targeted search was a different mode of finding. It required something more than just consumption on the part of the human. And it rewarded us with unexpected bounties. Browsing was more like fishing than being served fish fingers. Stewart Brand's information wanted to be free. Today's information wants to be whatever the algorithm will allow us to have. That's what the article is trying to get us to think about. Without telling us what to think.
• allturtles 5y ago
  Netflix's set of available movies for streaming is substantially smaller than what a high-quality video store carried. Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueFilm/comments/8kghfj/how_many_films_can_a_large_video_rental_store/ https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueFilm/comments/8kghfj/how_many_f... In any case, libraries have solved the scaling problem up to hundreds of thousands of titles or so, you combine browsing with a topical cataloging system (So you can get to the general area that interests you and browse around).
  • lazyasciiart 5y ago
    Sure, and most people had never been to one like that, and those who did go there were generally pretty knowledgeable about movies. I'm not sure it would have worked as a mass market user experience.