Live data from Hacker News

I bought the only physical encyclopedia still in print

arstechnica.com

181–190 of 199 posts

Re: I bought the only physical encyclopedia still in print

#181
post #40

I have tons of memories of reading my parents' World Book Encyclopedia growing up. Honestly, getting a print copy for my kids to browse through doesn't seem a bad idea.

Though the reports indicate that kids don't like them.

Sorry, did you say something? I was just sitting here leafing through my encyclopedias...

Re: I bought the only physical encyclopedia still in print

#182
World Book was always the most terrible Encyclopedia when I was growing up 1968-1984. Overly short articles and tons of color pictures; only suitable for 10-yrs and younger. When sent to do a book report in my elementary School library I knew I would always come up short on information if I relied on "The World Book."

Encyclopedia Americana was the thing to own and was IMHO better than the Brittainica. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_Americana . We owned the Encyclopedia Americana, The Book of Science (a 10-volume science encyclopedia), and a family medical guide.

Re: I bought the only physical encyclopedia still in print

#183
post #25

>Later, I introduced the encyclopedia to my kids. They had never used a print encyclopedia, and they looked at me like I was an alien, almost as if I were speaking a different language (such a trite expression, but man, is it accurate). I had hoped they could use the encyclopedia as an old-fashioned reference, but so far, they have completely and utterly rejected it, not even expressing interest or opening it once. T…

The limitations of the old style encyclopedia are immediately obvious when you go to actually use it. Thousands of articles that only barely scratch the surface on the topic. Even then if you're interested in something even mildly obscure it won't be in there at all. Of course you couldn't use it as a source when writing a paper, and worst of all they didn't even provide the sourcing information for the articles that…

This used to be false! I have my dad's copy of the ~1910 encyclopedia Britannica and they were still trying to cover the entirety of the field of mathematics in those years!

Re: I bought the only physical encyclopedia still in print

#184
post #25

>Later, I introduced the encyclopedia to my kids. They had never used a print encyclopedia, and they looked at me like I was an alien, almost as if I were speaking a different language (such a trite expression, but man, is it accurate). I had hoped they could use the encyclopedia as an old-fashioned reference, but so far, they have completely and utterly rejected it, not even expressing interest or opening it once. T…

Funk & Wagnalls also had an English dictionary in the early 1970s with excellent etymologies, which seem absent from dictionaries when i've looked in a Barnes and Noble store.

In case anyone hasn't seen it, there's a great online resource for etymologies:

https://www.etymonline.com

Re: I bought the only physical encyclopedia still in print

#185
We have the 1997 edition. It costed us 1,000₹/12$ for a single book( it has around 30 in a set) which was a lot of money for my dad in 1997. Surprisingly the color photos still pop, the page quality is brilliant and it's built like a freaking tank. It was like browsing the internet during the late 1990s.

Re: I bought the only physical encyclopedia still in print

#187

I don't find modern encyclopedias interesting, but the older encyclopedias (and textbooks) are fascinating. Specifically I love reading entries before major changes to a field. Like cells in 1950, right before the double helix structure of DNA was discovered. Or Germany in the inter war period, when everyone knew it was unstable, but no one was quite sure what that meant.

Everything educational from 1895 to the end of WWI in the US is deeply, overtly racist - race is inserted into places where one wouldn't even expect it. I'm fascinated by reading the stuff. Especially geography textbooks.

Yeah, growing up in modern America you think you have a handle on how bad racism can be, but it was something else back then. Jesus.

Re: I bought the only physical encyclopedia still in print

#189
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This takes me back. We had most of a set when I was a kid. I remember many times reading science articles over and over while eating cereal at the kitchen table. I guess not a lot has changed except I read wikipedia (or, let’s be honest, HN) instead. My oldest child is a voracious reader, but she mostly reads fiction/fantasy. I got her a Neil deGrasse Tyson book that she liked. This article reminds me that I need to…

I read all the scientific articles over-and-over and dipped into the other articles over time. Eventually I think I read much more than half of the full set. Not a bad thing. If we'd had smartphones back then I'm not sure I'd learnt anything useful.

If one talked about illegal download, z library and pdf drive in the past can provide you unlimited academic books. Sadly both gone. I would not have read about quantum field theory … not that I have no access to u library. But you need to surf those books to find one you can “understand” before you dig in. Even buy one as reading read book is so much better.

Re: I bought the only physical encyclopedia still in print

#190
post #25

>Later, I introduced the encyclopedia to my kids. They had never used a print encyclopedia, and they looked at me like I was an alien, almost as if I were speaking a different language (such a trite expression, but man, is it accurate). I had hoped they could use the encyclopedia as an old-fashioned reference, but so far, they have completely and utterly rejected it, not even expressing interest or opening it once. T…

Funk & Wagnalls also had an English dictionary in the early 1970s with excellent etymologies, which seem absent from dictionaries when i've looked in a Barnes and Noble store.

I don't know what Barnes & Noble carries in stores or what dictionaries are printed now. Paper dictionaries have limited space for obvious reasons. The paper dictionary that ignored those restrictions, the Oxford English Dictionary OED, was 20+ volumes.

Now most dictionaries are online like encylopedias, again for obvious reasons, and the leading ones at least have etymologies:

The OED is the definitive historical dictionary of English, including its etymologies. Unfortunately it's not free, but you might be a member of an institution that subscribes.

https://www.oed.com/

The leading American dictionaries are Merriam-Webster, which has a free edition and a subscription-based unabridged edition (Merriam-Webster now is owned by Britannica, which was American last I knew), and American Heritage, which is free and which has a section on Indo-European and Semitic roots of words.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/

https://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/

https://www.ahdictionary.com/

Hope that helps!

Post reply on HN