Hacker News Reader

Comment by ravitation | Hacker News Reader

To be fair, physical book sales were down in 2009, when this was written.

Though I wonder how relevant such a statistic is in the context of this discussion. Is there really a difference between me reading some long-form piece online (like this one) - in terms of, for example, the concentration requirement (which this piece seems to care deeply about) - and reading it in a newspaper (other than probably fewer typos)? The same could be said for reading a novel I found on https://www.gutenberg.org compared to reading the equivalent physical book. Except that reading it online is free, and at least equally (possibly more) accessible.

View on HN

There's something to be said about reading focus, with Twitter and online articles giving us content faster than ever, and finding time and energy to read takes more effort, but why do we have to discuss it through the lens a horribly outdated article with no clear thesis?

I understand that. My point is given equivalent pieces of writing (say the https://www.gutenberg.org version of "Pride and Prejudice" compared to a physical version) what is the difference in terms of value (in this case, using the author's value-system)? And, if there is a difference, are they worth the numerous advantages of the online version, such as its cost and its accessibility? "Technology" has not just given us Twitter, and to reduce "technology" to Twitter or World of Warcraft is naive at best (which, I agree, is one of the primary failings of this piece).

I believe that the premise is that when you use a multifunction device it is too easy for people to get distracted from the task at hand. But in that case, something like a Kindle would still fit the bill perfectly, as it is a single purpose device. Well, it can access thousands of other books, so I guess you could get distracted by constantly going to something else, but you have the same issue reading at the library.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com