Less Wrong Product & Service Recommendations

lukeprog

I have often benefited from recommendations for Things I Didn't Know I Wanted.

Given that Less Wrong is a community of unusually intelligent, critical, and self-improvement-focused people, I suspect we can generate a pretty helpful thread of product recommendations — perhaps even a monthly thread of product recommendations.

Rules:

Post one product your recommend per comment, so they can be discussed and voted on independently.
Provide a link for purchasing the product.
No books, movies, TV, games, or music. (These should go in other threads, like this one or this one.)

I'll post my own recommendations to the comments section, too.

I have often benefited from recommendations for Things I Didn't Know I Wanted.

Rules:

Post one product your recommend per comment, so they can be discussed and voted on independently.
Provide a link for purchasing the product.
No books, movies, TV, games, or music. (These should go in other threads, like this one or this one.)

I'll post my own recommendations to the comments section, too.

So did you have anything to say about the article?

I just tried the demo. I guess it is plausible that word shoving speed is rate limiting, since I had a hard time shoving all the words through my eyes at 700 words per minute, which might improve through training. But I'm wary of using a tool that might hurt comprehension, which seems harder to measure. I remember reading that subvocalizing improves recall for instance, but I doubt you could learn that just by observing yourself.

If you want to optimize your reading, making spaced repetition cards seems like the obvious thing. Why are you reading it if you don't want to remember it? Are you really confident that you remember any significant portion of the stuff you read on the Internet? Shouldn't we be optimizing for facts/habits/models acquired instead of words consumed?

So did you have anything to say about the article?

It seemed wrong. It took the observation that most people read at about the same speed, stretched it way too far, and treated it as a given rather than as something to improve on. Then juxtaposed a probably-real example (JFK reading at 1200wpm) with an obviously-fake one (a person who claimed to read 17k wpm), in order to discredit the real example. Then it pulled a definition trick, redefining "reading quickly" as "skimming", and failing to notice that the distinction between reading... (read more)

30

Less Wrong Product & Service Recommendations

30

30

30

Less Wrong Product & Service Recommendations

30

30