Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chopping up books when they're physically too big

attainablefelicity.mattkirkland.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 211 posts

Re: Chopping up books when they're physically too big

#191

Post by WillAdams »

egormakarov wrote: post #188
WillAdams wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can find a book with a sewn binding (or better a pair, as-yet unopened), if you open one per the instructions, then open the other haphazardly as one reads it, you will find that over time, the book which was not opened with care will develop a directionality to its binding causing it to be cocked, while the other, so long as it is read carefully will remain square. Typical glued texts are more prone to this,…

Would definitely try next time I buy a hardcover :) But I think this first opening rule must be some US quirk. I only see US sources for it on internet, and can't find German or Russian one

It gets mentioned in British texts on hand bookbinding.

Re: Chopping up books when they're physically too big

#192

Post by erelong »

This is a no-no for some of us, who like to keep books as"mint" as possible; it was even a struggle to get in to bending spines on paperbacks to read them

Nevertheless I could see doing this with old books where the pages are aleady coming out

Also I might enjoy the digital version of this, breaking up a PDF into smaller bite-sized chapters into a folder

Re: Chopping up books when they're physically too big

#193

Post by sampo »

hamdingers wrote: post #68
bithammerthunde wrote: post #64

Are AI companies trying to poison the search index? Like Boris Johnson did when he had fun times with a model on the campaign bus, then did a bizarre interview when he claimed he made model buses! https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/26/mesmerising...

Or Disney releasing a movie called "Frozen" so that web searches for "Disney Frozen" stopped returning macabre rumors about Walt Disney's possible posthumous cryogenic preservation.

Or Dubai ...

Re: Chopping up books when they're physically too big

#194

Post by 1899-12-30 »

WalterBright wrote: post #93

I use an ereader a lot. They have glaring lacks that nobody seems to have addressed: 1. Two page layout. This gives you more context when reading. 2. Imperfect printing. Older books have imperfect impressions of letters. 3. Tan colored background, which varies across the page and from page to page. Grey is so sterile. 4. Cannot stick a thumb on a page and flip forward and backward with your other thumb.

Ereader software doesn't have bookmarks?

Re: Chopping up books when they're physically too big

#195

Post by ramses0 »

If you're into bookbinding (it's great fun! /s?) what you're doing is effectively making smaller "text blocks".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bookbinding#text-block

Cover => recto/verso => Endleaf => Textblock{ signatures... } => ...then back to endleaf + cover like a sandwich.

I started with cereal boxes and old wrapping paper and have graduated to fancier wrapping paper and bookbinding board (stiffer, like matte-board).

The great benefit of doing something like this is being able to glue one of those cool ribbons into the spine for use as a bookmark!

Re: Chopping up books when they're physically too big

#196

Post by esperent »

wodenokoto wrote: post #154
esperent wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damn, did news articles ~7 years ago really just consist of a series of embedded tweets? It feels familiar but also kind of jarring.

They still do, to the best of my knowledge, although they have started incorporation reddit discussion too.

Not on the Guardian I'm fairly sure, or any other "serious" newspaper I read.

Re: Chopping up books when they're physically too big

#197

Post by enatiello »

amiga386 wrote: post #165
simlevesque wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The claim is that it's why the movie has that name, not why they made the movie.

Of course, that's why they used the generic word "frozen" with a lot of meanings, as opposed to the specific word "cryogenic" that people would actually search for.

Well, it could be because google sucks. Allegedly, the way google enshitifies their searches is to include parallel search terms in the query. Why does google enshitify their searches? Because people spend longer on the google site searching multiple times = more ad time. So, searching for either cryogenic or frozen individually on google may include the other search term, meaning that when searching for cryogenic and disney, you will more than likely get results for frozen and disney, which are probably ranked higher.

Re: Chopping up books when they're physically too big

#200

Post by amiga386 »

enatiello wrote: post #197
amiga386 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, that's why they used the generic word "frozen" with a lot of meanings, as opposed to the specific word "cryogenic" that people would actually search for.

Well, it could be because google sucks. Allegedly, the way google enshitifies their searches is to include parallel search terms in the query. Why does google enshitify their searches? Because people spend longer on the google site searching multiple times = more ad time. So, searching for either cryogenic or frozen individually on google may include the other search term, meaning that when searching for cryogenic an…

So the theory is now that Disney named one of their most successful films "Frozen", not because it's a good name for a story inspired by "The Snow Queen", but it's actually to stop people finding out the rumours that Walt Disney was cryogenically frozen by having results about the film outrank results about the conspiracy theory, even though that's trivially overcome by asking about "walt disney cryogenic" instead of "walt disney frozen", but they did that because Disney knew that Google sucks and would somehow be unable to stop pages about the film from outranking pages about the conspiracy theory.

That's a bold theory. Let's test it. Google results for "disney cryogenic":

    Was Walt Disney frozen after death?
    Walt Disney was cryogenically frozen : r/MandelaEffect
    Walt Disney's Cryogenic Chamber - Myth and Folklore Wiki
    How a strange rumor of Walt Disney's death became legend
    The truth behind Walt Disney's frozen head
    Was Walt Disney cryogenically frozen?
    Fact or Fiction: Was Walt Disney Frozen?
    What is the story behind the conspiracy theory that Walt Disney was cryogenically frozen?
8/8 are about the conspiracy theory, 0/8 are about the film.
Post reply on HN