>I have a WSJ subscription and read their front page most days and I'd say Scott's occasional blog posts give me >10x more utility than that entire publication.
Revised to "10x more utility per Scottpost than the entirety of an issue of the WSJ of which I only read the front page"
Honestly once you get past the front page of the WSJ the quality goes down precipitously
The front page is at least mainly filled by actual reportage
By the time you get to the opinions all bets are off
There’s been a huge number of stories in media crit about how much the reportage staff hate the opinion staff/columnists
Obviously if you work for the WSJ you’ve already sold your soul anyway but the actual reporters are a lot more sympathetic
friend, 100x is a quantifiable statistical inference that emerges automatically from stress-tested, machine-learned Bayesian inference. Scott is 103.6x better than Maggie Haberman, 383x better than Tom Friedman, and 22x better than Michiko Kakutani. it's pure rational science
His methodology is pretty clear, if you use statistical concepts like "fat tail" to analyze someone's skill, that means your analysis is correct. It's not your fault, if you were smarter you would understand.
Ok I know we’re all taking this as a chance to dunk on WSJ and NYT
columnists (and rightly so), but it’s worth pointing out that reporters
for those publications have a.) editors and b.) fact-checkers, both
things that Scott desperately needs.
WSJ has fact checkers, but the editorial board is literally built to lie to you. Max Boot talked about rejecting an offer to become the WSJ Opinion editor for economics because he knew nothing about economics. He found out later that’s why he’d been offered the job, the owners preferred conservatives without an economics background for the job, they towed the conservative line better.
The times Scott has gone through an editor (like his Vox pieces or industry journals) his work is noticeably worse, probably because the love-it-or-hate-it levity carries a lot of his prose. This is arguably true of a lot of NYT columnists as well, the best stylists among whom (Manjoo, Bouie) were usually poached for their distinct voices before getting under the thumb of Big Editor.
Compare Considerations on Cost Disease with [*Notes on Cost Disease*](https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/04/11/notes-on-cost-disease/), the same piece sterilized of most scottisms for The American Interest. It's...fine. More professional. I would not consider it an improvement.
oh good Lord. Yeah, I concede that Scott will Scott wherever he's placed.
If I got that as an editor I'd ask "yes, but *what is your thesis dammit*"
I'll admit that I've submitted stuff almost as rambling a collection of facts, but at least I said so and the editor did wonders on it.
not so sure about that anymore. I'm old enough to remember when the NYT literally never had typos; now you can count at least 1-2 in every single article.
what this idiot at r/SSC will never understand is that a) books worth reading and b) well-written books are two sets with a small overlap. Scott is occasionally worth reading but is always an absolutely terrible writer.
We know Pinker was an associate of Epstein and he is described as a white haired mad scientist from Harvard. Seems pretty likely that this is him.
WHere is the unredacted version available?
Positives evidence it was? I dunno what to tell you but this was a while ago when that story broke, which I know because I was one of the people who helped break the rumours: I was interviewed on the phone and everything.I don’t remember where to find the details.
This reminds me of DMs I’ve received asking if I have a blog, which I
either reply that I don’t or totally ignore. I’d easier write a book
than a regular blog but easier write a Reddit comment than a tweet.
McLuhan is always right: the medium is the message.
Damning with faint praise
‘100x better’
Excuse me sir what’s the methodology behind this calculation doesn’t seem v rational to me
100x longer maybe
Ok I know we’re all taking this as a chance to dunk on WSJ and NYT columnists (and rightly so), but it’s worth pointing out that reporters for those publications have a.) editors and b.) fact-checkers, both things that Scott desperately needs.
does nobody on earth read actual fucking books anymore
https://twitter.com/sapinker/status/1360787817459253251
Sounds a lot like this Steven Pinker grift.
«Perhaps» is doing a lot of work here. These people don’t read anyway, how would they know what good writing looks like.
This reminds me of DMs I’ve received asking if I have a blog, which I either reply that I don’t or totally ignore. I’d easier write a book than a regular blog but easier write a Reddit comment than a tweet. McLuhan is always right: the medium is the message.
To be fair to r/ssc, the God of Abraham who goes ‘lol nope’ gets a lot of upvotes.
(holy shit does this comment make no sense outside of context).
how does this scale work, exactly?
Low bar
What are your priors on this?
https://mobile.twitter.com/jonst0kes/status/1374495155307175939
100x?
Please show your work.