> Why jump on the opportunity to prune reading by rejecting the lot as soon an unrelated premise you disagree with is presented?
Ars Technica has already trashed its reputation with the infamous controversy over publishing AI hallucinated quotations.
I couldn't decide whether the opening sentence of the submitted article was so dumb that it had to be written by AI or so dumb that it had to be written by a human, and coming to a conclusion on that question didn't seem worth it.
> you could churn the entire article through AI to summarize it
I think you're missing the point here. By any measure, whether a year—"fewer than half of all adults reported having read a book of any kind in 2022"—or a day—"the proportion of Americans who read for pleasure on any given day fell from 28 percent in 2004 to 16 percent in 2023"—there is time to read books.
The relative amount of time it takes to read a book compared to the time it takes to place a bet is largely irrelevant, because reading books is worth doing, and there is time for it. If you want, you can read and bet, on the same day!
It's not necessarily true, however, that gambling can be done more frequently than reading, because gambling requires money, and if you keep gambling a lot, you'll likely run out of money.
I don't think I've read a book from cover to cover in one sitting since I was a kid. But I nonetheless read most days, sometimes just a chapter at a time. You don't need to read a book in one day, or even one week.
The comparisons were fine. I guess it makes you feel good to tell yourself that I was "nit picking around the edges", but I was actually disagreeing with you 100%.
Not necessarily. Is Harry Potter for edification? Trashy romance novels?
In any case, the article specifically notes that reading for pleasure, a subset of all reading, has declined.
> One conflated a time-consuming activity with a quick one, and the other conflated time periods of comparison.
There was no conflation by the article.
You presented a selective quotation that omitted the yearly book reading stats and attempted to argue misleadingly that the article was comparing a daily time scale to a yearly time scale.
I think you missed the point of the reading vs. gambling comparison. From the article: "Gambling has become [emphasis mine] a more common leisure activity than reading a book." In other words, the change is the point. Gambling was not always more popular than reading.
What exactly does "mentally passive" mean? I doubt cocaine is that either.
Anyway, I don't buy the "energy" story, that doomscrolling is somehow low-energy, or even that people can't muster the energy for any activity other than doomscrolling.
> Someone who doesn't read much is not good at it, and so no reading is passive.
How did people get worse at reading, other than choosing to spend time on the alternative activities that I listed? You may be reversing cause and effect.
I wouldn't call social media relaxing. After all, it's known as doomscrolling. I think reading is actually more relaxing. Social media is addictive, like a drug. Nobody calls cocaine relaxing.
> Reading an entire book takes much more time than placing an online bet.
Yes, but do you only do things for pleasure if they're done quickly? Is your sex always over in a minute?
Also, I was responding to this:
> Likewise, reading for pleasure "on any given day" is a totally different measure than "placed a bet last year".
Yes, reading for pleasure "on any given day" is a different measure than "placed a bet last year", but "read a book of any kind in 2022" is the same length of time, though not the exact same year.
> who has the time and the energy to read a long novel today?
Anyone who has the time and energy to spend on YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter/X, or for that matter, anyone who has the time and energy to spend watching TV.
Your selective quote left off the part that made it a fairer comparison. "Only 38 read a novel or short story" was a follow-up to "fewer than half of all adults reported having read a book of any kind in 2022." That's a year-long stat.
No, I was reponding to "It explains a hell of a lot."
You would have had the same problem if you had said, "Look up Napolean. It explains a lot." The problem is that it explains nothing. Neither Plato nor Napolean helps to explain Peter Thiel, or Elon Musk for that matter. "Philosopher-king wannabe" or "Napolean wannabe" is nothing but an insult wrapped in an historical reference, with no intellectual or explanatory value, and no specific connection to Thiel.
> I think you're reading my comment too literally.
Well, I agree that the concept of philosopher-king is applied by people nonliterally to Thiel, though mainly because those people are ignorant of Plato. But if we interpret your comment nonliterally and remove the "from Plato" part, I still don't see how the nonliteral concept helps to explain anything. Unless we're supposed to interpret "It explains a hell of a lot" nonliterally too?
As I see it, calling Thiel a philosopher-king wannabe is nothing more than a hand-wavy insult. He's a politically powerful billionaire, he has an undergraduate philosophy degree, and he likes to spout about politics and apparently the Antichrist. That's really all there is to it. The use of the term philosopher-king has no intellectual value in this context.
> I think the quote doesn't say what you think it says.
You still haven't said what you think it means!
> Wittgenstein loved philosophy
I think the phrase "loved philosophy" is way too vague to be informative.
> when people cherry pick his work
I picked some quotes for a Hacker News comment, necessarily brief. I also provided a link to the entire Philosophical Investigations, which I've course I've read more than once.
> dunk on the entire field.
The field of academic philosophy has a tendency to dunk on Wittgenstein. His previously biggest personal booster Bertrand Russell certainly did: "I have not found in Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations anything that seemed to me interesting and I do not understand why a whole school finds important wisdom in its pages." Many analytic philosophers feel the same way, ironically finding the Tractatus, which Wittgenstein repudiated, more to their liking.
They're probably correct to feel threatened. My own view, as I've stated, is that Wittgenstein's later work is a broad-based critique of philosophy, not aimed only at logical positivism, for example.
> skewed by personal hangups
What personal hangups do you mean?
I said that I left academic philosophy. After many years. I didn't say why. Do you think Wittgenstein and Rorty left academic philosophy due to personal hangups?
I don't think it does explain anything. I've seen no evidence that Thiel takes any particular inspiration from Plato. Rather, Thiel seems to be much more focused on Christianity and libertarianism, and those would be the sources of Thiel's anti-democratic predilections, not Plato's Republic. I think philosopher-king is more of a label that other people are trying to pin on Thiel. The Republic actually said that the philosopher-kings should have no private property, and children should be raised by the community.
Moreover, I've seen no evidence whatsoever that Elon Musk is looking to be considered a philosopher. He writes short meme tweets, not treatises.
Ars Technica has already trashed its reputation with the infamous controversy over publishing AI hallucinated quotations.
I couldn't decide whether the opening sentence of the submitted article was so dumb that it had to be written by AI or so dumb that it had to be written by a human, and coming to a conclusion on that question didn't seem worth it.
> you could churn the entire article through AI to summarize it
I don't do AI summaries, ever.