Glen - I very much appreciate your balance in this regard. I did not (and likely Marcus did not either) interpret your frustration with parsing my (overly) layered response to your Necker-Cube post as judgement of TL;DR unless the "L" was for "Layered" not "Long".
I also appreciate your *prescription* for citation with pithy preamble, and your *example* of it which I think has evolved over the years we have been doing this continuous "salsa rueda". (too)Much of my rambling here, unfortunately, is little more than "thinking out loud" and I DO trust that most (though not all) will delete or skip or skim most of my maunderings. I have enough evidence that others find bits and bobs, gems and pearls, in the swill that is my monolog (channeling Stephen Colbert?), that I continue. Yet I am inclined to try to *learn* from my betters (many here are MUCH better at being concise and precise) by example to hopefully increase the apparent signal/noise ratio. I need not demand of everyone that they have my public-key memorized to decrypt my often crytpographic gibberings. Waxing Gibbous, - Steve On 4/19/20 9:29 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote: > I won't read whatever argument Scott Adams might have made about long > narratives, mostly because I doubt he has anything useful to say. But also > because I *do* prioritize my time. It's not that my time is valuable. It's > that if I didn't prioritize (and triage against people like Adams), I'd never > be able to get any work done. > > Those that *complain* about TL;DR probably comprise a complicated set of > multi-faceted people, that won't be well-categorized by the "incurious, > impatient, entitled, part of the problem" predicate. That's OK. I'm willing > to allow the over-generalization. But it's those that do NOT complain, but > simply ignore TL;DR's are more interesting, I think. > > One interesting tactic for avoiding constructing TL;DR's is familiar, here in > this forum, and consists of *citation*. E.g. one need not post a long > explanation of negative probability when there's already an excellent TL;DR > exposition out there. All one need do is post a pithy preamble and link to > the extant exposition. But the interesting people are not those that complain > the TL;DR exposition is difficult to slog through. The interesting people are > those who never say a word about it. Did they click the link at all? Did they > read it after seeing Feynman's name atop it? Did they get past the 1st couple > of pages? Etc. > > It reminds me of this bit of hilarity: https://youtu.be/X-ZFoco_1gQ Where > Klepper goes round and round some of them "Read the transcript!" "Did you > read the transcript?" "No." > > On 4/18/20 6:36 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >> The opposite of TLDR is the technique described by Scott Adams. This leads >> me to posit that those that complain things are TLDR are likely just the >> incurious, the impatient, and the entitled, and likely to be part of the >> problem. Is there some particular crisis of their Valuable Attention that >> must be conserved at all cost? Are we running out of disk space? Are we >> running out of network bandwidth? No. Netflix is blazing gigabytes of >> nothing 24 hours a day to the drooling masses. Enough. .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/