7 ms·

If information is important enough to bother someone asking for a copy of it, but not important enough to spend an hour ingesting, I'm not sure what to tell you

If information is important enough to bother someone asking for a copy of it, but not important enough to spend an hour ingesting, I'm not sure what to tell you.

lucumo 1y ago
Wait. I'm unclear what your point is. Is it that asking for a copy is an unreasonable burden that should require a significant time investment from me? I've sent many copies of many things I made in my live. It's not so bad. And it's easily shared with many people at once. Or is it that people can't ingest any meaningful information in less than an hour? That's clearly not true either. A five minute article can contain extremely valuable insights. A 30 second conversation even more so.
- freeone3000 1y ago
  My company records all presentations: it’s like sharing the slides, but better, since we just have the entire presentation again.
  - lucumo 1y ago
    Always recording is a good practice I think. It's so cheap with video conferencing that you might as well. Even if nobody uses it later, it didn't cost much. And if you get that one presentation that provides stellar value it's a gift that keeps on giving. I don't really agree that a recording is always better than the slides. Slides are a text medium, and as such can be searched. You can also go through them much, much faster than through a recording (even if you can listen at 2x). If you're just looking for something specific, slides can be much better. And sometimes you need to get the whole experience. And then the recording is much better.
- maccard 1y ago
  The slices of a good presentation are worthless without the presentation itself. If the deck is valuable in and of itself, it could have just been an email or word doc in the first place.
  - lucumo 1y ago
    Well, it's not the reality of most slides I've seen. Most of them seem to be a pretty good summary of the talk. Weirdly, some of them contain more information than the talk. I do believe most presentations I've seen could've been an email or an article. So I guess I agree with you?
    - maccard 1y ago
      > I do believe most presentations I've seen could've been an email or an article. So I guess I agree with you? Yeah, I really should have said that in my original post. Most presentations could have been a one pager, and any presentation worth sitting through the slides aren't worth having.
01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago
Information should be indexed https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/09/ars-longa-vita-brevis/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/09/ars-longa-vita-brevis/
sneak 1y ago
Lots of things fall into this category. Speech is very low information density per time. Thankfully speech recognition and AI summary is a thing now.
- waldothedog 1y ago
  This type of phrasing is strange to me. I guess it depends on what you consider to be, and not to be, “information”. Reading a bullet point summary of Moby Dick certainly would compress the time required to understand the plot. Isn’t the prose or phrasing part of the transmission?
  - sneak 1y ago
    For most talks, I would say no. If I were going to a lecture by Pynchon (ha!) I would want to listen at 1x. For 99% of talks at conferences which are mostly just a way of communicating technical data, a text transcription that is then reduced in word count by 50% is probably only a very small loss (if that), and a 90%+ time savings. This gives me an idea for a website. All of the talks of a conference, audio transcribed and LLM summarized into 3-minute reads. It might be worth doing the whole INFOCON archive…
Scene_Cast2 1y ago
I've been in this situation. I'll spend the hour watching the info, but I'll dislike the inefficiency. I consider it impolite.
- mixmastamyk 1y ago
  Not a complete mitigation, but VLC et al plays back at 1.5X+. Highly recommended.
johannes1234321 1y ago
The thing is: When working with the material afterwards the important part are the small details. The talk/recording are good for the high level overview and following along on the big picture, but for details it is annoying as one has to jump around for specific words and phrases. Something written or an image/diagram is a lot better to study in depth. And there lies the trouble with slides: During a talk they should support what is being said, but they are often abused as also being the handout for afterwards.
- josephg 1y ago
  It sounds like you want detailed documentation. That’s fine, but that’s not what a talk is. A good talk isn’t a reference. And good documentation isn’t an engaging talk. If people want that, produce two artifacts. Don’t try shoehorn a talk into being documentation. That’s just a recipe for bad work.
  - johannes1234321 1y ago
    It depends on what the talk is about. Of course Steve Jobs' of cited iPhone introduction didn't have any details for in depth research later on, but was a high level product introduction. A technical talk however explains a concept, a tool or something and thus contains technical information to follow up with, but for that I need the words, the phrases stated so I even know what to look for in the manual. And probably I want to follow it in the order they presented it (I hope they thought about the order they presented it in!) however the manual is ordered more in a reference order. So yeah, if you do a high level marketing talk it doesn't matter, but then I also won't spend the time on watching a second time. If it has technical depth, then being able to follow the depth is good.
    - Daniel_Van_Zant 1y ago
      I have dealt with this issue as well before. If folks need something more in depth I will use a LLM + some massaging of my own to create a supporting document. Here is an example of a very disorganized conversation and the supporting document I made with it: https://www.danielvanzant.com/p/what-does-the-structure-of-large https://www.danielvanzant.com/p/what-does-the-structure-of-l... It has clear definitions of the key terms. Timestamps for the important moments, and links to external resources to learn more about any of the topics.

If information is important enough to bother someone asking for a copy of it, but not important enough to spend an hour ingesting, I'm not sure what to tell you.

lucumo 1y ago

Wait. I'm unclear what your point is. Is it that asking for a copy is an unreasonable burden that should require a significant time investment from me? I've sent many copies of many things I made in my live. It's not so bad. And it's easily shared with many people at once. Or is it that people can't ingest any meaningful information in less than an hour? That's clearly not true either. A five minute article can contain extremely valuable insights. A 30 second conversation even more so.

freeone3000 1y ago
My company records all presentations: it’s like sharing the slides, but better, since we just have the entire presentation again.
- lucumo 1y ago
  Always recording is a good practice I think. It's so cheap with video conferencing that you might as well. Even if nobody uses it later, it didn't cost much. And if you get that one presentation that provides stellar value it's a gift that keeps on giving. I don't really agree that a recording is always better than the slides. Slides are a text medium, and as such can be searched. You can also go through them much, much faster than through a recording (even if you can listen at 2x). If you're just looking for something specific, slides can be much better. And sometimes you need to get the whole experience. And then the recording is much better.
maccard 1y ago
The slices of a good presentation are worthless without the presentation itself. If the deck is valuable in and of itself, it could have just been an email or word doc in the first place.
- lucumo 1y ago
  Well, it's not the reality of most slides I've seen. Most of them seem to be a pretty good summary of the talk. Weirdly, some of them contain more information than the talk. I do believe most presentations I've seen could've been an email or an article. So I guess I agree with you?
  - maccard 1y ago
    > I do believe most presentations I've seen could've been an email or an article. So I guess I agree with you? Yeah, I really should have said that in my original post. Most presentations could have been a one pager, and any presentation worth sitting through the slides aren't worth having.

01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago

Information should be indexed https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/09/ars-longa-vita-brevis/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/09/ars-longa-vita-brevis/

sneak 1y ago

Lots of things fall into this category. Speech is very low information density per time. Thankfully speech recognition and AI summary is a thing now.

waldothedog 1y ago
This type of phrasing is strange to me. I guess it depends on what you consider to be, and not to be, “information”. Reading a bullet point summary of Moby Dick certainly would compress the time required to understand the plot. Isn’t the prose or phrasing part of the transmission?
- sneak 1y ago
  For most talks, I would say no. If I were going to a lecture by Pynchon (ha!) I would want to listen at 1x. For 99% of talks at conferences which are mostly just a way of communicating technical data, a text transcription that is then reduced in word count by 50% is probably only a very small loss (if that), and a 90%+ time savings. This gives me an idea for a website. All of the talks of a conference, audio transcribed and LLM summarized into 3-minute reads. It might be worth doing the whole INFOCON archive…

Scene_Cast2 1y ago

I've been in this situation. I'll spend the hour watching the info, but I'll dislike the inefficiency. I consider it impolite.

mixmastamyk 1y ago
Not a complete mitigation, but VLC et al plays back at 1.5X+. Highly recommended.

johannes1234321 1y ago

The thing is: When working with the material afterwards the important part are the small details. The talk/recording are good for the high level overview and following along on the big picture, but for details it is annoying as one has to jump around for specific words and phrases. Something written or an image/diagram is a lot better to study in depth. And there lies the trouble with slides: During a talk they should support what is being said, but they are often abused as also being the handout for afterwards.

josephg 1y ago
It sounds like you want detailed documentation. That’s fine, but that’s not what a talk is. A good talk isn’t a reference. And good documentation isn’t an engaging talk. If people want that, produce two artifacts. Don’t try shoehorn a talk into being documentation. That’s just a recipe for bad work.
- johannes1234321 1y ago
  It depends on what the talk is about. Of course Steve Jobs' of cited iPhone introduction didn't have any details for in depth research later on, but was a high level product introduction. A technical talk however explains a concept, a tool or something and thus contains technical information to follow up with, but for that I need the words, the phrases stated so I even know what to look for in the manual. And probably I want to follow it in the order they presented it (I hope they thought about the order they presented it in!) however the manual is ordered more in a reference order. So yeah, if you do a high level marketing talk it doesn't matter, but then I also won't spend the time on watching a second time. If it has technical depth, then being able to follow the depth is good.
  - Daniel_Van_Zant 1y ago
    I have dealt with this issue as well before. If folks need something more in depth I will use a LLM + some massaging of my own to create a supporting document. Here is an example of a very disorganized conversation and the supporting document I made with it: https://www.danielvanzant.com/p/what-does-the-structure-of-large https://www.danielvanzant.com/p/what-does-the-structure-of-l... It has clear definitions of the key terms. Timestamps for the important moments, and links to external resources to learn more about any of the topics.