Comments by "" (@timogul) on "vlogbrothers" channel.

Yeah, audioboooks are listening, not reading, but that's ok. "Enjoying a story" is something that can be done through both reading AND listening.
28
@EyeGlassTrainofMind Braille would be equivalent to reading in the same way that a record player or CD player is "reading" the bumps and grooves to produce sounds. Reading can be a tactile process as well as a visual one, but not an auditory one, because we have a word for that, which is "listening." You can read musical notation, but you listen to a song, you do not "read" a song with your ears. Nobody takes this to mean that you aren't allowed to listen to audio books if you like though.
13
Yes, but listening to a story is a different thing than reading. Not necessarily better or worse, just separate, like "walking" and "riding."
9
@ I think they are similar, but distinct meanings. It's like with manga, which is much more often faithfully translated into anime than books are into TV or movies. If someone asks if you've read a given manga, but you've only watched the anime, have you "read" it? No. Do you know how it plays out though? Yeah. I think the correct answer would be "I watched the anime," but if you did answer that you'd read it, it would be a forgivable inaccuracy.
5
@Troelski I don't know, I listen to videos all the time, particularly when trying to get to sleep. Either way, playing a video without looking at it is not the same thing as playing a reading of a book, the actual medium of it is distinct. They are separate things, even if the content of them is the same.
5
@ So we agree, listening to an audiobook might be similar to reading the book, but is still distinct from reading the book. That's all I was saying. Also, the written version of spoken word is called "the transcript." It's often the only option for deaf people.
4
The books read to you by your parents were a case of them reading and you listening, and that is fine, but if you say that you read that book at the time, then you would be wrong. You listened.
4
@YellowSpaceMarine Audio books are the audio of books. A book read out loud. You could also call them "audio dramas," I suppose, but they are not read, they are listened to. This is fine, but it makes no sense to confuse the two. It honest just seems a bit sad, like book listeners are insecure about how they enjoy their stories and insist that it be called "reading" anyway.
3
TL;DR, "No, that's not how words work, but it's ok, you don't have to read if you don't want to."
2
"I don't want art students to be able to look at my work and be inspired of it to create work of their own. I do want it to be public though."
2
@ I sometimes say I was listening to a video, if that's what I did. If I didn't see what was happening on the screen, it wouldn't be accurate to claim I'd watched it. I don't fault people for using either though, it's a "white lie."
1
Unfortunately, I live in a blue state, with blue representation, who are already on the right side of this, but with no po3wer to change it. Equally sadly, the red states are filled with people who do not care, and that's why their states are red.
1
Reading and writing work perfectly well for describing the things that they mean. But just because you aren't "reading" something does not mean that you are not experiencing it, learning from it, engaging with it, etc. There are already plenty of words to adequately describe these concepts, all we need to do is use them appropriately to the situation. The appropriate verb for audiobooks is "listening." You read a book, you listen to an audiobook, and either is fine.
1
If someone wanted to "conquer social media platforms," all they would need to do is design an algorithm that priorities "joy" over "engagement." Don't feed people stuff that made them angry or that was misleading, feed them stuff that people enjoyed. Have a system that lets everyone label how a post made them feel, and seek out the ones that made them feel "happy." If someone constantly says posts make them "happy" which also got a ton of "angry" responses, maybe devalue that person's feedback a bit in the outcomes. Also devalue the "cheap" happy stuff a little bit, not entirely, show some puppy and kitty pictures in there, but if there's not a balance then that's all anyone would see. And frogs. :D
1
Here is the map I would like to see: 1. Take each individual polling place, or at least as granular a data set as we can find. Color a dot for each polling place that is shifted red/blue in exact proportion to the votes case, so you would almost never see pure red or blue, and see purple on a 50/50, magenta on a 60/40 red and plum on a 60/40 blue, etc. 2. The white balance of the dot would also be based on the population density of the dot, so a dot that represents "the most people" would be a very deep color, while a dot that represents fewer people would be closer to a pink/lavender/baby blue. This would, I believ,e result in a "heat map" style map that is mostly purple with arcs of magenta and plum, dashes of red and blue, and would be more vibrant along coasts and around cities, while being more washed out in the more rural regions, and I believe that would be a more clear snapshot of where the people are at.
1