= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ciphergoth comments on Open Thread: February 2010, part 2 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (857)
It's the usual 'Rapture of the Nerds' spiel.
Thanks to you and whpearson for taking the time to find out so the rest of us don't have to. Voted timtyler down for wasting your and our time.
Edit: removed downvote, see below.
Er, this is pretty relevant and on-topic material, IMHO!
Jaron Lanier is a fruitcake - but I figure most participants here already knew that.
You may not personally be interested in what famous geek critics have to say about "the Tech World's New Religion" - but it seems bad to assume that everyone here is like that.
Hmm, I didn't see it that way. Removed downvote. But videos are a pain; you could do us a favour next time by saying a few more words about whether you're recommending it or just posting FYI. Otherwise there's a Gricean implication that you judge it worth our time, I think.
There should be a policy, or strong norm, of "No summary, no link" when starting a thread with a suggested link. That summary should tell the key insights gained, and what about it you found unique.
I hate having to read a long article -- or worse, listen to a long recording -- and find out it's not much different from what I've heard a thousand times before. (That happens more than I would expect here.) Of course, you shouldn't withhold a link just because Silas (or anyone else) already read something similar ... but it tremendously helps to know in advance that it is something similar.
Yes, I don't like "teaser" links much either. I did give the author, title and a three word synopsis - but more would probably have helped. On the other hand, I didn't want to prejudice watchers too much by giving my own opinion up front.
I get that. Can we encourage a norm of writing FYI when we want to avoid the implication that it's a recommendation?
They may not; it takes a while for one to figure out that he really is a fruitcake - individual columns or essays tend to sound like perfectly respectable contrarianism. I first began reading his articles in Discover and it wasn't until his 'Digital Maoism' essay that "he really is a nut!" occurred to me.