A note on estimated reading times

I have find most of the estimated reading times on websites and blogs to be redundant. I more often than not end up taking more time going through the text than what is suggested in the ERT.

And while I agree that "800 words, listicle, 8th grade English" is a better way to tell potential viewers on what they should expect, I don't think there can be any hard way to determine reading times because the difference in variables from person to person is too wide to account for.

> the biggest argument for why they might not be ableist is that they are largely bullshit

100% this. Reading times are bullshit. They can be a bit useful if they're accompanied with a report of how much "time" is needed to read past where I've read. Then I can do the math in my head to convert that into a percentage of the document I've been through, and that's actually informative.