HN Books @HNBooksMonth

It makes a really good doorstop

EDIT - to all the downvoters, I read like 40% of it but all of the criticism you can easily find about it[0] is accurate. 10 years or so later it makes a really good doorstop, I have used it for that several times, it's super heavy with thick pages. I have used it as a source of knowledge exactly zero times and a doorstop probably 8 times, so it's utility to me is overall pretty high. I think you can get used copies for about $4, so it might be a good investment.[1]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science#Receptio...

[1] https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1579550088/ref=dp_ol...

⬐ ScottBurson

I bought it new. Fucking waste of money.

⬐ qubex

Likewise.

⬐ cr0sh

I bought it new, too - twice. First time, because I was reading it and found that it was bound incorrectly (text repeats for about a good third of the book) - so to finish reading it, I had to buy a new copy.

I did finish it (everything except the appendix/notes - though I did read a few of those, which are fascinating as well, and wholly attributed) - I do not consider my purchase a waste of money, either.

⬐ ScottBurson

I admit I didn't get very far in it, and maybe I didn't give it a fair chance, though you are one of the few people I've seen reporting that they found value in it (and that's great; I'm glad someone has). But I had known about cellular automata since the early 1980s when I read about Ed Fredkin's work in the area. I don't remember now what the first pages of NKoS say, but I do recall, after reading a little of it, concluding it didn't seem worth continuing.

They'd probably be more... computational:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1579550088/?tag=googhydr-20&hvadid=...

I'd skip a new kind of science, or at least buy and use it as a doorstop. http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1579550088

>My grudge, if I have any at all, is not with Chomsky or his politics, but rather with the Myth of Magical Numbers, which has so entrenched itself that even mathematicians have fallen prey to it in one form or another for centuries, if not millennia.

I see your point, but I'm not sure Chomsky was espousing anything magical (as in pseudo-science) by saying the Fibonacci sequence is found in nature and isn't well understood why. Present company excepted, perhaps.

I also try to keep in mind that the term "magical" is often rather amorphously applied.

Some call pseudo-science "magical" due to ignorance.

Some call some science "magical" due to ignorance.

However, some call certain science "magical" not due to ignorance, but as a respectful nod towards the vast complexities involved that we still don't know (and perhaps never will) that surround the complex "nature"[0] of science.

If you haven't already read it, I think this is a pretty interesting take on it (in a sense):

http://www.amazon.com/New-Kind-Science-Stephen-Wolfram/dp/15...

Series of followups 10 years later:

http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2012/05/its-been-10-years-wha...

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo3R3LBjDek (Love And Rockets - "No New Tale To Tell")

⬐ s_q_b

I see your point as well, and it's quite well taken.

On second reading Chomsky's quote doesn't seem as hand-wavy about the Fibonacci Sequence as it initially appeared. It's one of those topics that has such a myriad of falsehoods perpetuated around it, that perhaps I was too primed to see it here.

>Some call pseudo-science "magical" due to ignorance.

This was the sense in which I used magical, although you are right. "Magical" can be used to evoke either the vision of pseudo-scientific nonsense or "magical" in the sense of "insufficiently understood, complex, and thus awe-inspiring."

>If you haven't already read it, I think this is a pretty interesting take on it (in a sense):

I devoured A New Kind of Science when it was released because I was fascinated by emergent systems and cellular automata at the time, and have read it again about a year ago, and found it didn't hold up as well. Nevertheless excellent book, if a bit bold in its claims.

I haven't seem the follow ups, but thanks for pointing me toward them! I'll be sure to give them a read.

Apologizes if I pushed back a little hard, but rest assured my only grudge here is with misuse of the Golden Spiral, not with Prof. Chomsky and certainly not with you.

I can't help but think that maybe Jobs just didn't have a positive review of the book. I've never read it but the most helpful reviews on Amazon are not favorable.

http://www.amazon.com/New-Kind-Science-Stephen-Wolfram/dp/15...

⬐ snorkel

... making this perhaps the most genius refusal, suggestion, and compliment all wrapped into one.

⬐ pkamb

Same for Woz's book: "I was a little disappointed — Steve Jobs had indicated he'd write a foreword. But he'd never written a foreword before and I said, "Just write what we were like back then."

"We sent him the book and he said, "Oh, I saw some excerpts, and I'm going to decline writing the foreword." I don't know why because I'm nice to him, so there must have been something he didn't like."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/200...

The article might be interesting but his "grand goal" not so much.

See the customer reviews on Amazon about the aforementioned book: http://www.amazon.com/New-Kind-Science-Stephen-Wolfram/dp/15...

⬐ d0mine

Here's a direct link to the thorough review by Joe Weiss of "The Emperor's New Kind of Clothes" book http://www.amazon.com/review/RUGSCP3XBNBUV/ref=cm_cr_rdp_per...

I present to you Chris Anderson, as theorized about by himself:

  The way Chris Anderson has traditionally published is unsustainable in the face of new developments,
  as outlined in this misleading neon spot-color info-graphic! *(not pictured)*

  In the face of such a massive increase in critical attention towards my trite editorial, the way I
  have traditionally published cannot continue. Each new dalliance I put on the cover of Wired is now
  savaged for it's idiocy by domain experts before it even appears on newsstands!

  How am I supposed to get an advance on the book version of my pop-science pablum if I'm not showered
  with uncritical adulation? How am I going to debut on the NYT bestseller list in four months if I'm
  already discredited?

  Clearly, I need to develop a *new kind of* [1] Chris Anderson. A totally new model of exerting my
  bloviations on the world. I need to find a way to publish to smaller, more sycophantic audiences in
  private at first; gradually sowing my trite theories into the public discourse so that they are not so
  easily mocked for what they are.

  I need to explore the depths of my own *long tail* -- I need to expose my genius to my *social graph*
  first. Publishing straight to the cover of Wired exposes my ideas to public ridicule by practicing
  experts -- if I could limit my audience initially to *self-facilitating media nodes* [2] like myself,
  I might be able to ride a wave of sycophancy right over any criticism!

  I, Chris Anderson, hereby usher in a new age of post-pop-science! Jared Diamond and Malcolm Gladwell
  don't stand a chance against my cunning insights into this world of post-hype I herald!

[1] http://www.amazon.com/review/product/1579550088

[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4mpJumHU-w

⬐ ovi256

This is great, where did you get it ? Did you write it ? If yes, congrats, it's hilarious.

⬐ blasdel

I wrote it as a comment on MetaFilter when the bullshit was making the rounds back in July: http://www.metafilter.com/73484/Virtual-Thinking#2191757