You don't have half an hour to spare any time in the near future? But you do have the time to scroll HN and comment?
I'm not a huge fan of videos as content delivery mechanisms for simple facts, but this is a talk - an argument made with the intent of convincing you about something that you may find counter-intuitive. What's the point of summarising that, if it loses the granularity of the argument, its persuasive power? "Static types bad, Clojure good?"
What persuasive power are you going to lose if you cut out the jokes that 5-year plan is stripes? And that's the first 3% of the talk, so pure lossless compression
> "Static types bad, Clojure good?"
sure, this kind of summary is useless, but then is simply too short
There is no shortage of long talks that lack nuance. Just say that no, you can't effectively summarize this video, instead of doing whatever it is that you are doing here.
> There is no shortage of long talks that lack nuance.
Nuance is not the same thing as a talk designed to build an argument bit by bit and be persuasive. You could summarise an hour-long closing argument for the defence in a jury trial as 'My client is not guilty', but doing so is rather missing the point.
> Just say that no, you can't effectively summarize this video, instead of doing whatever it is that you are doing here.
x == y, but with the added implication that SBF's take on longform is not actually something to aspire to.
The point of summarizing is to condense the substance for potentially hundreds of readers into a sensible set of ideas in a couple of paragraphs. Any wise listener will stay away from talks that need full half an hour to stay “persuasive”.
>> The point of summarizing is to condense the substance for potentially hundreds of readers into a sensible set of ideas in a couple of paragraphs. Any wise listener will stay away from talks that need full half an hour to stay “persuasive”.
“I don’t want to say no book is ever worth reading, but I actually do believe something pretty close to that. … If you wrote a book, you f'ed up, and it should have been a six-paragraph blog post.” -Sam Bankman-Fried
Ironically, Nate Silver went into great detail--in his book--about what a damn weirdo SBF was even before he ended up in jail. So yeah, if you want to follow the lead of a convicted felon, well . . .
I'm not a huge fan of videos as content delivery mechanisms for simple facts, but this is a talk - an argument made with the intent of convincing you about something that you may find counter-intuitive. What's the point of summarising that, if it loses the granularity of the argument, its persuasive power? "Static types bad, Clojure good?"