jonnathanson (u/jonnathanson)

jonnathanson commented on The Case Against Reading Everything thewalrus.ca/the-case-aga... · Posted by u/samclemens

FLUX-YOU · 8 years ago

>"read some BDSM material"

Emphasis on quotes. Most of that novel is an abusive relationship, from what I hear.

See, what's interesting to me is that the grandparent comment describes "50 Shades" as ~8 hours of reading. The zero-sum argument assumes that reading time is some fixed value for all people. I don't remember how long it took me to read "50 Shades," but it was significantly less than 8 hours, and couldn't have been more than an hour. (I'm not saying that to brag. It takes me a lot longer to do many other things than many other people. My only point is that the author of the article completely ignores throughput variability in his calculus.)

jonnathanson commented on The Case Against Reading Everything thewalrus.ca/the-case-aga... · Posted by u/samclemens

pedrosorio · 8 years ago

> You also realize there is no trade off between depth and breadth. It's a false dichotomy.

Given that we're in a forum where computer science and engineering topics are often discussed, I find it odd that anyone would suggest this.

You have a limited resource (time). Whenever you have a limited resource, there are tradeoffs in how you spend it. Unless exhaustive search is feasible, there is indeed a tradeoff between depth and breadth.

jonnathanson · 8 years ago

Depth and breadth, in this case, are not opposite directions on a straight line. They are vectors that only appear oppositional when viewed under specific time constraints. The more prolific a reader you are, the more efficiently you read, and thus your higher throughput dramatically compresses time.

If we're to speak about very specific increments of time and units of reading material -- say, you get to read N books over 1 week -- then sure, the zero-sum argument holds. But a lifetime is so much time, offering so much opportunity to the experienced reader, that time is almost effectively lifted as a constraint.

The only zero-sum quantities in this case are time and number of books. Depth and breadth of subject matter are better described as characterizing subcategories of #_books.

jonnathanson commented on The Case Against Reading Everything thewalrus.ca/the-case-aga... · Posted by u/samclemens

jasode · 8 years ago

>You also realize there is no trade off between depth and breadth. It's a false dichotomy.

It's a tradeoff because of the finite time for reading.

One can reread Shakespeare's 4 tragedies (Hamlet, King Lear, Othello, Macbeth) again for the 10th time (about 8 hours of reading) -- or -- read E.L. James "50 Shades of Grey" for the 1st time (also about ~8 hours of reading).

Some writers may suggest that you read E.L. James because that way, you can mark the checkbox of "read some BDSM material" and hence satisfy the "read more widely" advice. (The "widely" as the blog author interprets it). The blog and his quote of Seamus Heaney disagrees with that and advises to read what one enjoys. It's also ok if one is re-reading an old favorite again instead of unfamiliar writing that's often low quality.

And yes, choosing what to read is a zero-sum game. Mathematically, how could it not be?

jonnathanson · 8 years ago

No, I'm not literally suggesting people have infinite time on their hands. Rather, what I'm suggesting is that time compresses when you're reading for pleasure. When you reach a certain "level," shall we say, you read so naturally and so widely and so frequently that it is truly astonishing how much you can read in a day.

Then again, I'll continue to caveat all of this by saying that my subjective experience seems increasingly abnormal every time I read someone's advice on how to read (or write). The idea of deliberately practicing a style or a voice is weird to me. I've always written by ear, and I've never thought about it. I've thought about structure, and character, and perspective, and logic, and all of the other elements that go into writing well. But when it comes to voice and style, well, shit, man. You pick it up as you go along, and you learn to trust it. It strengthens, not weakens, with exposure to breadth.

One last time: I'm going to go out on a limb and say that my experience is probably weird.

jonnathanson commented on The Case Against Reading Everything thewalrus.ca/the-case-aga... · Posted by u/samclemens

folksinger · 8 years ago

The point of the article was in encouraging writers to hone in on an individual voice as opposed to being influenced by thousands of competing tones.

Perhaps an analogy to songwriting will make things more clear: how well received are the works of someone who writes rap-funk-metal-folk-electro-bluegrass songs?

It's not that a successful country music songwriter can't listen to and enjoy hip-hop but you'll find they tend mainly to listen to and be influenced by country music.

jonnathanson · 8 years ago

While I don't disagree with the author on his points, I find them premised on faulty logic. His thesis assumes that depth and breadth are zero-sum pursuits. I suppose they are if time and energy are limiting factors, but to those who read and write for the love of the game, those limits are lifted.

When it comes time to settle down on a voice and hone your craft, sure, I would never recommend you switch up your style for the hell of it. But if you want to read widely, and if doing so refines your style, great. Go for it. It probably will.

Again, the way the author characterizes this 'problem' is jarringly foreign and antithetical to my own experience. Perhaps I lack the objectivity to see it the way the author does.

jonnathanson commented on The Case Against Reading Everything thewalrus.ca/the-case-aga... · Posted by u/samclemens

jonnathanson · 8 years ago

This article is horseshit. I'm a professional writer, and I'll trust Oates and King over whoever this guy is.

"Read widely" isn't some religious dictum. It's more of a religious calling. (Of sorts.) If you love to read, and you love to write, you naturally read all fucking day. Your thirst is unquenchable. Your tastes are varied. So you drink from many different fountains.

You also realize there is no trade off between depth and breadth. It's a false dichotomy. It seems to be manufactured by people who find the act of reading some sort of chore. I do not. I find it the highest pleasure I have ever experienced.

Perhaps there's a difference between being naturally curious and being forced to read broadly. I dunno. I've never had to be forced. I like reading and writing the way many of us like programming. I'm truly sorry if the author does not. Writing's a hell of a shitty way to make a living; I can't imagine what it'd be like if you didn't at least enjoy the sport of it.

jonnathanson commented on History of AOL Warez peteflow.blogspot.com/200... · Posted by u/nimz

jonnathanson · 8 years ago

My god, this brings back some formative memories. Memories of AOHell. Memories of HappyHardcore, the self-styled hacker who claimed authorship of it. Memories of hanging out in Warez chat rooms, where everyone showed up in phished accounts to trade 'warez' and conspire to troll various AOL communities. Memories of taking apart System 7 shareware games with ResEdit and, in so doing, learning how they worked.

Those were the days, man.

jonnathanson commented on Mark Karpeles Will End Up Taking $859M from Mt. Gox Bankruptcy cryptocoinsnews.com/mark-... · Posted by u/kajb

s73ver_ · 8 years ago

It does not. Again, suppose BTC had gone to $2. Would you then say that they only stole $2?

jonnathanson · 8 years ago

I think you're right, but I do like pishpash's solution of converting to currency value at the time of theft and then applying some sort of interest calculation. This divorces the damages of the theft from the hypothetical asset value of milkshakes over time.

jonnathanson commented on Mark Karpeles Will End Up Taking $859M from Mt. Gox Bankruptcy cryptocoinsnews.com/mark-... · Posted by u/kajb

pishpash · 8 years ago

Sure, but the appropriate amount, in my mind would have been $100 plus prevailing interest, not some in-kind distribution. Suppose there is only one milkshake in the world and it got destroyed, how would you ever repay the claim except by converting to currency value?

jonnathanson · 8 years ago

So essentially we set damages at t0 currency value of the milkshake, plus interest over N years. Seems reasonable.

If milkshakes were illiquid, and could only be bought and sold every N years, that would seem to peg damages to asset value instead of currency value. Or am I wrong?

jonnathanson commented on Mark Karpeles Will End Up Taking $859M from Mt. Gox Bankruptcy cryptocoinsnews.com/mark-... · Posted by u/kajb

oaijdsfoaijsf · 8 years ago

Assumptions: milkshakes are fungible (I can buy a functionally equivalent milkshake), I have the wealth to acquire a replacement milkshake without significantly shifting the balance of my assets.

Under those assumptions, you have deprived me of the exchange value of my milkshake at the time it becomes known to me that you have misappropriated it. This is my moral judgment, not a legal opinion.

[Edit: I did not take your response as a frank disagreement, and anyway, even if it were, there's nothing wrong about disagreeing with me. I'm not an ethicist, just an opinionated rando.]

jonnathanson · 8 years ago

I'm inclined to agree under that assumption. [Edit: same!]

jonnathanson commented on Mark Karpeles Will End Up Taking $859M from Mt. Gox Bankruptcy cryptocoinsnews.com/mark-... · Posted by u/kajb

Shaanie · 8 years ago

You stole $100 from me. If the value of milkshakes went down to 0 in 2020, would you say you deprived me of nothing?

This is basically like the people talking about the guy who spent thousands of bitcoins on pizza as if he lost shitloads of money by buying that pizza. Of course he didn't.

jonnathanson · 8 years ago

In the scenario I've presented, I think you're correct. This is because milkshakes are liquid (both literally and figuratively), and because they are replaceable.

If we add the condition that milkshakes are not replaceable, does that change the outcome? I'll stfu now if this is derailing things.