is it better than the transcript that was posted earlier?
- ⓞnor
@nor - if you read the transcript already then the video isn't going to do too much for you - but he does a very good job presenting
- Frederic
I never got around to reading the transcript.
- Paul Buchheit
Video consumption is arguably far more time consuming than text consumption, but we're such visual/audio creatures that we still seem to prefer it alot of the time.
- Ranjit Mathoda
It's a great presentation - I was just answering @nor's question if it was different from the transcript. Video has its place - so does text. If I want to understand something, I prefer text because it allows me to jump back and forth and go at my own pace.
- Frederic
I pretty much always prefer text. I dream of being able to see a transcript/description of YouTube videos before deciding whether to actually watch the video. I also dream of tools that let me easily skim/skip/summarize/accelerate online audio/video.
- ⓞnor
I too almost always prefer text. It's not the video part; it's the audio part that makes it hard to skim or multitask.
- Amit Patel
A jog dial (or inertial scrollbar) and pitch-corrected speedup makes audio a lot more skimmable, especially when using thumbs from the video for texture and recall. That still leaves the environmental problem - audio requires headphones or privacy. Use closed captions? Develop good speech recognition? Learn to read spectrograms (or a transformation of spectrograms) directly?
- ⓞnor
Thanks to Mr. Shirky, it's now a bit easier to deal with Cognitive Surplus now that we have a name for it.
- Nenad Nikolic
myspeed is pretty great for speeding up video ( http://www.enounce.com/myspeed ) . (edit: it did actually work sorry -->It didn't work for this video though). My favorite part is the cognitive heatsink part btw.
- metalerik
"An unpretentious thai restaurant in Beverly Hills, nice ambiance, the food is quite good, and the prices are reasonable. Pad thai, yellow curry, and southern thai border beef are all good choices, as…"
- Ranjit Mathoda
"Since we can't actually read each other's minds, arguably none of us really knows who our friends truly are. We rely on a belief that our friends are our friends, backed up by some circumstantial evidence, which we'd perhaps prefer not to test, to help maintain our happiness. I get your point though that examining the strength of your friendships at an early stage successfully would be useful to maintain happiness later when life throws you a curveball and the friendship comes under stress. But I'm not sure that really is analogous to the link between self examination and self worth. Do you have to live a moral life to have a life worth living? Do you have to know you lived a moral life to have a life worth living? A lot of people find great worth in their pets, and I'm not really sure their pets are that self aware. Does a person who is in too much pain to examine their life have a life no longer worth living?"
- Ranjit Mathoda
"Thanks for pointing out that interpretation of Socrates' statement, for mentioning Kraut's interesting book and for the praise of my thoughts on the topic. One of the reasons I phrased my essay the way I did is that this is the common English translation of what Plato said about what Socrates said. That does introduce multiple potentials for errors. I'm therefore more about criticizing the statement itself, the way it is parroted, than really criticizing Socrates himself, who seemed like a great chap to have a chat with, and who may have intended to say something different. Since he could have kept examining his life in exile from Athenian society, what he may have been saying is that it was his life's work to teach others in his society how to examine their lives, and if he was denied that right by Athenian authorities, than he would use his conscious choice of death as a final lesson to his society of how much worth he ascribed to what he was trying to teach. That sentiment I find..."
- Ranjit Mathoda
"Thanks for pointing out that interpretation of Socrates' statement, for mentioning Kraut's interesting book and for the praise of my thoughts on the topic. One of the reasons I phrased my essay the way I did is that this is the common English translation of what Plato said about what Socrates said. That does introduce multiple potentials for errors. I'm therefore more about criticizing the statement itself, the way it is parroted, than really criticizing Socrates himself, who seemed like a great chap to have a chat with, and who may have intended to say something different. Since he could have kept examining his life in exile from Athenian society, what he may have been saying is that it was his life's work to teach others in his society how to examine their lives, and if he was denied that right by Athenian authorities, than he would use his conscious choice of death as a final lesson to his society of how much worth he ascribed to what he was trying to teach. That sentiment I find..."
- Ranjit Mathoda
"Since we can't actually read each other's minds, arguably none of us really knows who our friends truly are. We rely on a belief that our friends are our friends, backed up by some circumstantial evidence, which we'd perhaps prefer not to test, to help maintain our happiness. I get your point though that examining the strength of your friendships at an early stage successfully would be useful to maintain happiness later when life throws you a curveball and the friendship comes under stress. But I'm not sure that really is analogous to the link between self examination and self worth. Do you have to live a moral life to have a life worth living? Do you have to know you lived a moral life to have a life worth living? A lot of people find great worth in their pets, and I'm not really sure their pets are that self aware. Does a person who is in too much pain to examine their life have a life no longer worth living? Do you have to be happy to have had a life worth living?"
- Ranjit Mathoda
"The discussion of how medical services should be funded (private by wealth and desire, public by majority rule coercing resources from all, some hybrid or out of the box approach) and delivered (competitive providers, monopoly provider, etc.) often does involve a discussion of whether capitalism or socialism or something else is better, but to my mind those terms are fairly crude and vague, and really are about how you organize the effort to get to the goal, rather than a goal itself. The goal, what I called the just society, is for everyone to be healthy, which surely includes receiving a certain amount of basic services. How that can best be created is worth discussing."
- Ranjit Mathoda
"The discussion of how medical services should be funded (private by wealth and desire, public by majority rule coercing resources from all, some hybrid or out of the box approach) and delivered (competitive providers, monopoly provider, etc.) often does involve a discussion of whether capitalism or socialism or something else is better, but to my mind those terms are fairly crude and vague, and really are about how you organize the effort to get to the goal, rather than a goal itself. The goal, what I called the just society, is for everyone to be healthy, which surely includes receiving a certain amount of basic services. How that can best be created is worth discussing."
- Ranjit Mathoda
"It's a fact Google simply wouldn't hire most of the people at a Walmart skill level. I don't disagree that Google gives the people it hires a very high level of pay and perks (including 20% time to work on self directed projects), but that doesn't mean they give any perks or pay to people that Walmart will hire and give pay and benefits to. In pointing out that Google is very profitable my intent was not to say it is evil for making a profit, but to point out the criticisms of Walmart relating to its dominance, market share, mind share, profit per employee, etc., pale in comparison to that of Google. With respect to your point about Walmart treating its employees badly, my point is that Google treats those same people worse (not offering them a job, pay, or perks). I actually think it is fantastic that someone figured out a way to utilize workers at a low level of skill profitably. I do think it is terrible that such workers aren't given more opportunities to obtain higher levels of..."
- Ranjit Mathoda
"It's a fact Google simply wouldn't hire most of the people at a Walmart skill level. I don't disagree that Google gives the people it hires a very high level of pay and perks (including 20% time to work on self directed projects), but that doesn't mean they give any perks or pay to people that Walmart will hire and give pay and benefits to. In pointing out that Google is very profitable my intent was not to say it is evil for making a profit, but to point out the criticisms of Walmart relating to its dominance, market share, mind share, profit per employee, etc., pale in comparison to that of Google. With respect to your point about Walmart treating its employees badly, my point is that Google treats those same people worse (not offering them a job, pay, or perks). I actually think it is fantastic that someone figured out a way to utilize workers at a low level of skill profitably. I do think it is terrible that such workers aren't given more opportunities to obtain higher levels of..."
- Ranjit Mathoda
"Some people do seem to get bored by their loving relationships, and craving excitement, do self harmful things... I suppose it varies by individual and context how much "novelty" matters."
- Ranjit Mathoda
"Thanks for your extensive thoughts Anita. There's two issues I'll tackle. The first is what Socrates really chose between. The second is what role examination has in determining worth. As you mention, what Socrates really chose was death via hemlock over exile. Arguably he saw exile as being deprived of the right to teach the examination of life in the manner he thought wise to the community he wanted to belong to, and saw this as worse than choosing death. By choosing death he could transform himself in the minds of his philosopher student community into the protector of the community's ideals. He would also be proving to his society and all future persons the strength of his conviction. The small irony is he could still have examined his life all he wanted, while in exile. He would have lost the ability to teach his current students in his current society. He would also have lost his halo of respect to the like minded community of philosophers that have followed him in time. To..."
- Ranjit Mathoda
"If Socrates said "If you have the wisdom to correctly examine your life and you fail to examine your life you may make mistakes that you later regret" I would agree with your interpretation of his statement. On the other hand if someone doesn't examine their life at all perhaps their life has more worth to them then if they do start examining it. If someone is unwise in how they approach examining it perhaps they'd be better off not starting on such an examination. A flaw in what Socrates said is that every human life is examined to some extent. What I really think he meant was "If I am not allowed to teach the examination of life in the manner I consider wise then my life is not worth living." If that is what he meant, the statement is definitely vague and ill written in terms of communicating an idea. Vague statements are fodder for scholars to ponder, so it certainly hasn't hurt his brand any. But as I suggest that may have more to do with philosopher's receptivity to the statement..."
- Ranjit Mathoda
"Thanks for your extensive thoughts Anita. There's two issues I'll tackle. The first is what Socrates really chose between. The second is what role examination has in determining worth. As you mention, what Socrates really chose was death via hemlock over exile. Arguably he saw exile as being deprived of the right to teach the examination of life in the manner he thought wise to the community he wanted to belong to, and saw this as worse than choosing death. By choosing death he could transform himself in the minds of his philosopher student community into the protector of the community's ideals. He would also be proving to his society and all future persons the strength of his conviction. The small irony is he could still have examined his life all he wanted, while in exile. He would have lost the ability to teach his current students in his current society. He would also have lost his halo of respect to the like minded community of philosophers that have followed him in time. To..."
- Ranjit Mathoda
"If Socrates said "If you have the wisdom to correctly examine your life and you fail to examine your life you may make mistakes that you later regret" I would agree with your interpretation of his statement. On the other hand if someone doesn't examine their life at all perhaps their life has more worth to them then if they do start examining it. If someone is unwise in how they approach examining it perhaps they'd be better off not starting on such an examination. A flaw in what Socrates said is that every human life is examined to some extent. What I really think he meant was "If I am not allowed to teach the examination of life in the manner I consider wise then my life is not worth living." If that is what he meant, the statement is definitely vague and ill written in terms of communicating an idea. Vague statements are fodder for scholars to ponder, so it certainly hasn't hurt his brand any. But as I suggest that may have more to do with philosopher's receptivity to the statement..."
- Ranjit Mathoda