= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
erratio comments on Link Sharing Thread - April '11 - 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 (87)
Request that you split these up by topic. For example, I see at least half a dozen webcomics that I recognise in there mixed in with artwork, essays, Nick Bostrom and links whose URLs give me no hint at all as to what they're about.
EDIT: Thank you, that's a vast improvement
I deliberately didn't try to classify them because the majority are either unclassifiable, or the only information communicated by the classification would be stereotypes that doesn't apply to the particular work. "what I like" explicitly selects for things where classifications are useless, that break boundaries between classifications and the best off many worlds.
ok, to make the reasons behind my request more concrete - I am very bad at reading just half an archive, watching just one TED talk, or stopping halfway through a story or video. As such, I prefer my memetic hazards to be as clearly labelled as possible.
Is "unclassifiable" like "unexplainable"?
Some of them, some not.