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

The last thing libraries need is Silicon Valley “disruption.”

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 348 posts

Re: The last thing libraries need is Silicon Valley “disruption.”

#61

Post by zachrose »

BurningFrog wrote: post #26
Sharlin wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last time I read a library-related discussion on HN, one of the sentiments expressed was basically ”I download ebooks, why would anyone need a library?” Boggles the mind. There was also a bizarre comment about libraries being only funded to keep a bunch of otherwise useless civil servants employed.

Let me steelman that argument. Libraries were invented because information was only available on printed (or hand written) books, which were very expensive and scarce resources. Now information can be available almost literally for free and instantly, to anywhere. If the institutional inertia of libraries didn't exist today, would they really be invented as they are? https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Steel_man

I’ll go the other direction. Public libraries have large and networked collections, physical and digital, that they let you borrow for free. Why do we need to buy from Amazon and subscribe to Netflix when in theory the libraries could provide all that content?

Re: The last thing libraries need is Silicon Valley “disruption.”

#62

Post by romaniv »

rb808 wrote: post #57
chris_mc wrote: post #2

If you think libraries are useless, try going to one a few times and talk to the staff about the services they provide. I'd personally say libraries are one of the government organizations with the best return on investment, because education and information are almost invaluable. I'll fight a war over libraries, no joke.

> try going to one This is probably the best hint that they might not be so useful. The truth is most people never go to libraries.

Some users of this website might never go to libraries, but every time I go to our local library there are tons of people there.

Re: The last thing libraries need is Silicon Valley “disruption.”

#63

Post by droopyEyelids »

rb808 wrote: post #57
chris_mc wrote: post #2

If you think libraries are useless, try going to one a few times and talk to the staff about the services they provide. I'd personally say libraries are one of the government organizations with the best return on investment, because education and information are almost invaluable. I'll fight a war over libraries, no joke.

> try going to one This is probably the best hint that they might not be so useful. The truth is most people never go to libraries.

Most people don't go to hospitals either. At any given moment they're probably serving less than .5% of the population.

Re: The last thing libraries need is Silicon Valley “disruption.”

#64

Post by BurningFrog »

Apocryphon wrote: post #37
BurningFrog wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me steelman that argument. Libraries were invented because information was only available on printed (or hand written) books, which were very expensive and scarce resources. Now information can be available almost literally for free and instantly, to anywhere. If the institutional inertia of libraries didn't exist today, would they really be invented as they are? https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Steel_man

The counter-argument is that libraries provide vital services to communities as public facilities in addition to simply being collections of shared knowledge, and that physical space should not be so easily replaced by the virtual.

True, but I think of that as institutional inertia.

Libraries were formed to share very expensive printed books in a common space. Over the centuries, books and information became very cheap, and now mostly the common space remains.

It certainly has real value. Do we need to keep the pretense of the books as the real purpose for it?

Re: The last thing libraries need is Silicon Valley “disruption.”

#65

Post by ashelmire »

rayiner wrote: post #54
ashelmire wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's something ironic about a lawyer and university employee decrying education. Perhaps we should hit you over the head a few times until you forget everything you've ever learned and see how well the rest of your life turns out?

Nothing ironic about it. Lawyers in the U.S. typically need seven years of education (a four-year college degree, and a three-year JD). In the U.K., they manage with a 3 to 4-year LLB. In the U.S., everyone is required to go to high-school through grade 12. In Germany, 40% of people finish at grade 10. Both the U.K. and Germany manage to have world class economies with substantially less education than the U.S. The U…

We were talking about the value of libraries and education, not university education.

I should come clean, I'm also a university employee. I do agree with you that we require too much formal education in many cases, and would add that the financial cost of university education in the US is outrageous. However, education, independent of universities, clearly has great value. Libraries in particular are very cheap; a single library can service many thousands of people with only a few employees.

Personally, I'd like to see industry embrace educational resources like Coursera, so we can move away from the expensive, often predatory university model that locks many fields behind golden gates.

Re: The last thing libraries need is Silicon Valley “disruption.”

#66

Post by mfringel »

rayiner wrote: post #32
ashelmire wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we cite third world nations and past human history? Or do you want a detailed list of every time that lack of education or information negatively affected individuals, regions, economies, or governments? The list would be several billion lines long and no human could possibly compile it. I'm sure r/AskHistorians could give you a list of some of the more entertaining examples if you're interested.

OP didn't just assert that education has a value, but that it is "almost invaluable." In this context, we're talking about the marginal returns from more education compared to the marginal costs. I'm asking for evidence that, for our society, the marginal benefit from more education exceeds the marginal cost.

What will you give in exchange for that evidence? A differing opinion with sufficient evidence to back it, or merely a less-wrongian meta-comment on styles of discussion?

The former is valuable. The latter is worse than uninteresting.

Re: The last thing libraries need is Silicon Valley “disruption.”

#67

Post by bovermyer »

rb808 wrote: post #57
chris_mc wrote: post #2

If you think libraries are useless, try going to one a few times and talk to the staff about the services they provide. I'd personally say libraries are one of the government organizations with the best return on investment, because education and information are almost invaluable. I'll fight a war over libraries, no joke.

> try going to one This is probably the best hint that they might not be so useful. The truth is most people never go to libraries.

"Most people," huh? Got a source for that?

Re: The last thing libraries need is Silicon Valley “disruption.”

#68

Post by maxxxxx »

AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #17

The best thing a library can do in this day and age is support something like Overdrive, which lets people with a library card digitally rent books to deliver to their Kindle or E-reader. Mine fortunately does, and despite the limited selection, it's great: I can check stuff out without even leaving home. The "books" are automatically returned after the check-out period. That's it. If Silicon Valley wants to help, th…

In the end Silicon Valley wants to make money and control the distribution of content. They hate the principle of libraries and would kill them off quickly.

Re: The last thing libraries need is Silicon Valley “disruption.”

#69

Post by rayiner »

ashelmire wrote: post #44
rayiner wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP didn't just assert that education has a value, but that it is "almost invaluable." In this context, we're talking about the marginal returns from more education compared to the marginal costs. I'm asking for evidence that, for our society, the marginal benefit from more education exceeds the marginal cost.

Just in economic terms, the value of education is pretty clear: https://www.bls.gov/emp/chart-unemployment-earnings-educatio... The value in terms of other benefits (which save financially and in other, more difficult to measure ways) is also pretty clear: https://eml.berkeley.edu/~moretti/lm46.pdf That's the end of the free research I'll do to prove you wrong, because frankly, it's extremely obvious to me and everyo…

The BLS chart shows correlation, not causation. The question is not whether people with college degrees make more money, but whether college actually provided something that inherently increased their earning capacity (beyond the signaling value of college).

In Germany, the plurality of kids finish school at Grade 10. Does it make our economy better and more competitive that we make kids endure school through Grade 12, and now are increasingly pushing them to do it through Grade 16? Or is it just a zero sum game?

Post reply on HN