= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
timtyler 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)
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.