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/
