I really didn't get on with that one. Felt very much like a book that could have easily been shortened down to an essay and suffered for the additional length.
I disagree about "next". I wasn't confused by the original usage. "Next" is more associated with "subsequent" than "upcoming". The "future" component is contextually inferred.
Probably nobody at all got confused by that word choice.
It didn’t take me long to parse out the meaning but the phrasing was confusing.
“The next book he wrote, Noise, ….” Would have been better or “After that book he wrote Noise….”.
I absolutely was confused for a second or two and thought “wait, are we talking about a different person? He isn’t going to have a ‘next’ book unless he had one queued up?”.
Did I need the explanation above? Not really, I’d come to the right conclusion on my own but I can imagine someone who isn’t a native speaker (reader?) might stumble on that more and I enjoyed the confirmation.
The sheer irony of your unwarranted pedantic critique of the usage of “next” is that all HN threaded comments, including yours, have a “next” link in their headers which clearly does NOT refer to unwritten future comments.
I really didn't get on with that one. Felt very much like a book that could have easily been shortened down to an essay and suffered for the additional length.
The coauthors of Noise simply don't write as well as Kahneman did. The lack his focus and tight narrative thread.
[flagged]
I'm sorry to pile on, since I just replied to you at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I disagree about "next". I wasn't confused by the original usage. "Next" is more associated with "subsequent" than "upcoming". The "future" component is contextually inferred.
Probably nobody at all got confused by that word choice.
It didn’t take me long to parse out the meaning but the phrasing was confusing.
“The next book he wrote, Noise, ….” Would have been better or “After that book he wrote Noise….”.
I absolutely was confused for a second or two and thought “wait, are we talking about a different person? He isn’t going to have a ‘next’ book unless he had one queued up?”.
Did I need the explanation above? Not really, I’d come to the right conclusion on my own but I can imagine someone who isn’t a native speaker (reader?) might stumble on that more and I enjoyed the confirmation.
> Probably nobody at all got confused by that word choice.
This is overconfidence; e.g. it "it is clear to me, so it must have been clear to everyone else."
Indeed, there is a person in this overall thread [1] saying the use of "next" was ambiguous:
> I literally thought some unpublished book.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45548294
3 replies →
The sheer irony of your unwarranted pedantic critique of the usage of “next” is that all HN threaded comments, including yours, have a “next” link in their headers which clearly does NOT refer to unwritten future comments.
Not sure why I bothered responding to a troll.
[flagged]
2 replies →
[flagged]
1 reply →
[flagged]
[flagged]
7 replies →
[flagged]