Item — HN Reader

> Also note that this specifically focuses on blogs designed to make money and dealing with general-interest stuff like fashion or travel. A lot of this has moved onto Instagram and TikTok as a byproduct of people using phones as their primary "content consumption" devices

This needs to be repeated ad nauseum on HN.

For most people (especially those not working in jobs which require heavy amounts of writing, analysis, and reading), text is NOT the default method with which they interact and communicate information.

TikTok, IG reels, YouTube shorts, longer form YouTube content, podcasts, television, etc all feel "easier" and more "natural" for the vast majority of people.

4 comments

Why does it need to be repeated? It is clear enough that the blogging era was a bit of an atypical period, that much is true; but why, on a website called Hacker News, should I need to care about what most people choose to do with their lives? Yes, in reality it’s partly VC News, but the mandate is intellectual curiosity, which most people have had beaten out of them by the time they were fourteen. Some amount of disdain for what most people end up doing by default, for what’s normal, etc., is absolutely instrumental to not having that happen to you.

(For what little it’s worth, and in the spirit of aforementioned curiosity: nausea gives you ad nauseam; with some caveats, a Latin noun in the singular governed by the preposition ad gets the ending -m while retaining the final vowel of its stem.)

Even most of my nerd friends are consuming less and less longform text. It has been years now since budding hackers can pick up their coding skills through YT videos and now TikTok, and suggesting they read through longform documentation or an OReilly book just makes one look out of touch. HN's audience is as susceptible to the trend the GP mentions as anyone else.

I'm currently learning electronics, as well as having just recently sat my Physics/Math finals. I can tell you with 100% certainty you CAN'T learn shit from /just/ video.

Actual learning requires you to think about what you just read, maybe re-read it multiple times, stop to try and solve a example problem, etc - all of which require you to stop/rewind which video inherently disfavors.

Besides, I think just like handwritten notes might have a slightly different neurological effect than typed ones, reading might just be a very different mental muscle more connected to comprehension; humans had oral language for much longer than any script, so maybe it came with some different connections to higher brain structures as well.

Illusion of learning is more important than actually learning stuff to many.

I prefer to separate it as "casual learning/curiosity" and "intentional learning" rather than something so crass. I'd admit to being an enjoyer of both, I have no dreams or illusions about me becoming civil engineer or city planner just because I like watching those sort of videos, even though they're informative as well as mostly just entertainment with unreliable narrators.

As long as you're conscious about what mode you're in (which to be fair, many probably aren't), I think it's fine.

Well, I was talking about myself. I used to learn mostly through videos, but I often struggled to apply what I'd watched. Over time, I realized I learn best by reading, writing, and actually putting things into practice, rather than passively consuming videos. Videos often gave me the illusion that I was learning, but later I'd have trouble recalling or using what I'd learned. I don't have that problem with text.

The only thing you’re saying with “certainty” is that you personally cannot learn only from video. Anything else is pure hubris.

I’ll say this with certainty, video is terrible reference material.

Talk me through something the first time, sure, but if I need to look something up (yes, I know asking an LLM is available) I want a comprehensive subject guide, mostly in text, searchable by actual keywords.

I think parent is trying to make the point that yes, for you video is a terrible reference material. For me too, but some people do keep links to videos and look up things that way, as surprising and counter-intuitive (to us) that may be.

You could compare performance on a timed exam between access to YouTube or to an open textbook. It really isn’t a generational vibe thing. They are different mediums.

Nobody said they do that though? Weird comment from my perspective.

They said they learn from them, not that they are effective references. I’m not buying the “us and them” or to each their own on this one, sight unseen. Do you have an example?

I mean of course you can go back to a point in time in a video, if you index a transcript and ignore the weird narration and wait through the typing sounds, OCR whatever comes up on the screen to copy and paste and need animations to be reminded you are supposed to pay attention, and you are aligned with the video feed algorithm.

I’m not trying to stop anyone.

> but why, on a website called Hacker News, should I need to care about what most people choose to do with their lives?

Well, when the question is "why did the blogs go away" the answer might be difficult to investigate by only considering a narrow slice of the potential audience for said blogs.

>TikTok, IG reels, YouTube shorts, longer form YouTube content, podcasts, television, etc all feel "easier" and more "natural" for the vast majority of people.

That's not exactly neutral though, but part of a larger theme of regression from literacy to a visual and oral culture (and a dopamine seeking junky one).

Audio is just easier to multitask with than reading.

Audio may feel easier to multitask with, but how much do you actually retain?

One of the nicest things about multitasking audio is that it's easier to concentrate for a long time since I'm busying my body.

If I'm sitting down to read, my body thinks I'm trying to take a nap.

I'm usually listening to the stuff I'm expecting to be not really worth retaining, but useful to skim though once.

Like "crime and punishment".

Alright I'll bite: What are you getting out of skimming through what is widely considered one of the greatest novels of all time? General plot points? That can be accomplished with a readthrough of the SparkNotes.

Well, I might have been too harsh. Listening is better than "skimming". It is actually slower, so you're retaining more.

>greatest novels of all time

I was forced to read it at high school, finished about a quarter, didn't enjoy it a slightest bit, and managed to sabotage the rest of the reading successfully.

Many people told me that the book just wasn't fit for my age and maturity level, so I promised myself to re-read it as an adult. Now I am executing this plan.

I am still not impressed. Of course, the language is much better than what youtubers are speaking in, so listening is more pleasurable, but overall the book is underwhelming.

Dostoyevskiy himself admitted that the book is a merger of two drafts, none of which he managed to complete on its own, and indeed it feels like that.

The first component (which had been called "Drunkards" before the merger) is about the life of alcoholics. I cannot really reflect, since I never drank any alcohol at all. Perhaps it could teach me how to deal with them, but so far the most conclusion I have drawn is just "avoid".

The second component is a so-so detective story. It could have been better, if the protagonist hadn't been clearly mentally unwell. You know, any plot involving insane people is not really worth reading, because admitting that your character is a madman is basically saying "his motivations are not what real people have". Any question of the form "why did he do X", are immediately answered with "because he is a madman". Okay, fine, now what about actually describing real human behaviour?

>That can be accomplished with a read-through of the SparkNotes

No, not really. I can feel it quite well when something like this can be accomplished. Sometimes I start listening to a book, only to find out that listening doesn't work, I _need_ to see the words in order to understand what is going on. This happened more than once, so I am confident that it's not an exception.

This appears to be true for a plurality, or maybe just barely a majority of people.

I don't find audio so easily multi-tasks, unless we're using different definitions. My example: I find it very difficult to do something described in an audio or video format - rewire a light switch, say. I find it way easier to have text with a diagram. I can stop and check the text at any time. I find it easier to go back to previous sentences, than to rewind an audio or video.

When i say multitask I mean that more literally. If you’re driving you can’t read, if you’re a passenger on public transit audio won’t make you motion sick, if you are cooking or cleaning you can have it on in the background, etc.

Reading requires the full use of your eyes, no way around that.

Fair enough - we have different definitions. If I have audio on while driving or cooking or cleaning, I can only half listen, I miss a lot. I have to be very careful with what I listen to while driving, lest it take my attention away from the road, so I only half agree with you.

Video feels easier to consume but is it really easier to produce one that people find easy to consume?