231–240 of 345 posts
I'm solidly in the camp that believes that if Graham wasn't rich no one would read this stuff or claim to admire it. He also should have run this through a spell checker.
i don’t think he was rich when he first started? also other rich people also write stuff. nobody reads that shit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Marx wrote the following about Proudhon: >M. Proudhon has the misfortune of being peculiarly misunderstood in Europe. In France, he has the right to be a bad economist, because he is reputed to be a good German philosopher. In Germany, he has the right to be a bad philosopher, because he is reputed to be one of the ablest French economists. Being both German and economist at the same time, we desire to protest agains…
Marx and his hot takes are highly overrated
> It's hard to be right without sounding right. This doesn't seem true in the age of LLMs, which are notorious for being confidently incorrect. In fact, this whole article seems out of touch with the realities of where AI is going. In my opinion, good writing is dead. Or rather, good writing is commoditized. Good ideas are still very much alive, but if you have an idea and bad prose, iterating with an LLM will have a…
I believe that it is not that style helps the content to be more right, not in the way PG believes (like in the example about writing shorter sentences), it is that a richer style (so, not shorter, but neither baroque: a style with more possibilities) can reflect a less obvious way of thinking, that carries more signal. I'll make an example that makes this concept crystal crisp, and that you will likely remember for…
> I find the style of PG fragile: brings the point at home but never escapes simple constructs I describe it as inverse purple prose. The over-engineered simplicity stands out and distracts from the content. Simplicity in the naive sense of minimal word count increases cognitive load because we have neural circuits that got used to a particular middle ground.
This article's claim is a good demonstration of Brandolini's law. End of discussion.
> Brandolini's law (or the bullshit asymmetry principle) is an Internet adage coined in 2013 by Italian programmer Alberto Brandolini. It compares the considerable effort of debunking misinformation to the relative ease of creating it in the first place. The adage states:
> The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.I believe that it is not that style helps the content to be more right, not in the way PG believes (like in the example about writing shorter sentences), it is that a richer style (so, not shorter, but neither baroque: a style with more possibilities) can reflect a less obvious way of thinking, that carries more signal. I'll make an example that makes this concept crystal crisp, and that you will likely remember for…
Presumably, for this concept to stick with you your whole life, you'd have to have heard of "Borges"? From Googling that name, it appears the author you're referring to died in 86. Why would anyone expect him to win the current year's Nobel Prize in Literature?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Marx wrote the following about Proudhon: >M. Proudhon has the misfortune of being peculiarly misunderstood in Europe. In France, he has the right to be a bad economist, because he is reputed to be a good German philosopher. In Germany, he has the right to be a bad philosopher, because he is reputed to be one of the ablest French economists. Being both German and economist at the same time, we desire to protest agains…
Marx and his hot takes are highly overrated
We know from experience that it’s possible. Many of the greats did both.
There’s a tweet where PG argues that Musk can’t be evil because smart people work for him. His reasoning is basically: “No intelligent person would work for someone evil, and I know many smart people who work for Musk. Therefore, he can’t be evil.”
But that logic doesn’t hold up. Our modern understanding of evil often involves some form of dehumanization, usually in the service of a so-called higher goal, which is used to justify the cruelty. The obvious historical example is Hitler. And to say that no smart people ever worked for him is absurd. Just look at Heisenberg or Heidegger. They were definitely “smart” for any definition of “smart”.
It seems like PG struggles to recognize what’s right in front of him. He tries to make abstract, high-level arguments that often contradict observable reality - and he rarely offers concrete and rational explanations to support them.
I'm solidly in the camp that believes that if Graham wasn't rich no one would read this stuff or claim to admire it. He also should have run this through a spell checker.
What's an example of a spelling mistake in it? I read it carefully and didn't notice any.
This is wrong in so many different ways it's like an art piece. Every part of it that tries to defend the central thesis is actually disproving it. It's kind of funny actually. Here's a dude that's been writing for 30 years, and not only is his writing bad, his ideas are crap. It has the feel of somebody who's completely convinced of his own ideas, despite the fact that they're based solely on his personal experience…
> By right I mean more than just true. Getting the ideas right means developing them well — drawing the conclusions that matter most, and exploring each one to the right level of detail. So getting the ideas right is not just a matter of saying true things, but saying the right true things.
I'm guessing that a moron with 30 year's experience on a farm would not successfully do that, even when writing a book on farming.