probably you haven't noticed this, but using 'tl;dr' instead of 'summary' or 'abstract' is a group identity marker by which the author shows solidarity with their (presumably profoundly ignorant) readers. it's the same sort of gesture as describing the paper's authors as 'eggheads' or 'boffins'
and evidently in this case the blog post author really didn't read the paper they were 'summarizing'
i find your contributions so far to the discussion of this paper profoundly disappointing
>i find your contributions so far to the discussion of this paper profoundly disappointing
I'm not sure why you are so hostile, and why you think everyone except yourself is profoundly ignorant, but it's clear that you have some sort of world view where you're superior than anyone else you interact with. I doubt anything I say would convince you otherwise.
tl;dr: I found this conversation disappointing, too.
i frequently interact with people i admire and who know more than i do (and sometimes they are the same people), and, as i said above, even people who are profoundly ignorant about book learning are often wise about many other things
rather than being hostile, i have taken the time to explain in more detail the things you asked about in my previous comments because they were unclear to you
i am surprised that you have stooped to launching personal attacks on me in this comment, since so far i have criticized only your low-quality comments (and the original blog post) rather than any presumed personal attributes of yours
>i am surprised that you have stooped to launching personal attacks on me in this comment, since so far i have criticized only your low-quality comments (and the original blog post) rather than any presumed personal attributes of yours
You've called me "profoundly ignorant" several times in this chain. How you can say this with a straight face is baffling.
i haven't called you profoundly ignorant even once. please do not lie about what i have said; there is no point in doing so in any case because anyone reading this thread can look half a page up or click the 'context' link and see that you are lying
i said that people who don't read long things are profoundly ignorant, at least within the sphere of book learning, though often not in other ways. that's not a personal attack on them, it's just an obviously true statement if the phrase 'book learning' refers to anything at all
you haven't said even once that you don't read long things, so there was no reason for me to even suspect that what i said applies to you, even if it were a personal attack (and, well, some people are sensitive about being ignorant because they're used to being criticized for it)
From now on I will strive to only write "abstract" instead of "TL;DR" so I can avoid showing solidarity with the presumed profoundly ignorant. It's a matter of principle that I must appear to be the most intelligent person in any room I enter, virtual or physical.
maybe you could show solidarity with them in a way that doesn't reinforce a dichotomy between them and people who read books
for example, by emphasizing the praiseworthy attributes you have in common rather than the misfortunes that have befallen you and the self-destructive choices which, in cases like this one, perpetuate those misfortunes
i mean it might be useful to read a book from time to time, or at least a 25-page article, and that's less likely if you turn it into an identity threat
we're all born profoundly ignorant but we don't have to stay that way
if you're the most intelligent person in the room maybe you're in the wrong room. this can easily be reversed to provide a plan of action if being the most intelligent person in the room is what you value most. beware, though, some people are smarter than they look
and evidently in this case the blog post author really didn't read the paper they were 'summarizing'
i find your contributions so far to the discussion of this paper profoundly disappointing