I think I'm coming at this from a different cultural position than you are, Mike, because what you detail here about the use of "tl;dr" is not the same as how I've seen it used in other spaces in which I interact.
How I've become accustomed to seeing it used (and even then not often) is where a person who has made a long, considered, well-argued post will also include a "tl;dr" version either at the start or the end. The argument is still available for anyone who wishes to engage with it to read; the work has still been done; the summary is provided by the arguer in order to provide a succinct version for those who might not have time to read the position in full. It is, generally, not written by someone replying who is seeking to allow others to short-circuit the work of reading the argument by stating only the conclusion (or whatever version of the conclusion this replier might offer).
The use of "tl;dr" as you describe it feels to me more like a situation in which someone, in the spaces where I interact, would instead post a meme screenshot of a few text messages reading "i ain't reading all that/i'm happy for u tho/or sorry that happened". This is usually meant jocularly (if honestly) but is sometimes ill-received.
This is perhaps further to say that I am sufficiently unfamiliar with the use of "tl;dr" that you describe that I'm having trouble fully understanding how it gets used. From what I read, I'm given to understand that its most common use case is as a reply to someone who made a lengthy argument, and is written after only a brief scan of the post, rather than considered engagement with it?
I agree with Daniel; most of the time when I see (or very occasionally use) TL;DR, it's at the top of a long blog or comment and provides a summary or abstract of the following long post, so that the reader can decide whether the longer post falls into or outside their wheelhouse of interest. Commenting on a blog or comment after only reading the TL;DR would, to me, be considered rude, though of course the barriers against rudeness in the current society have largely fallen.
But as always, YMMV, and you may be encountering different uses of TL;DR, as someone who regularly writes long, engaging posts and receives copious commentary.
I would really like to strangle whoever came up with the stupid label thought leadership and spread it around. Every time I see it, I just want to slap the person using it. With gloves. On both cheeks. Why do we keep inventing stupid phrases for things that already exist, are already defined, or don’t really exist at all? God I hope it stops a lot quicker than the resurgence of “low rise” or “sagging” jeans did. 🙄
From my experience most engineers have little to no use for the humanities. Engineering is important, no doubt. But the humanities; well, it's right there in the name, isn't it?
1. One of the takeaways of Getting Things Done is to do things in appropriate contexts. If I try to read a NFTC post in the wrong context -- say, over a quick cup of coffee when I have an appointment in 10 minutes -- it makes me very uncomfortable (other blog posts would be no problem). I need to be in the right place and frame of mind to do it. When text is available everywhere, it's easy to forget that.
2. In the past, you've defended your writing style. I happen to enjoy it (most of the time), but there is little doubt that it limits your audience. I write grants for a living and they have page limits, so I've learned to be as concise as possible in my writing. I wonder what a "Concise Notes from the Circus" post would look like.
I am not scolding anyone for not having or taking the time to read my pieces by writing this. I am talking, specifically, about the communicative act of posting "TLDR" in an online forum, in an internal company chat, on social media, in response to something writing a long, thought-out answer. Policing brevity in exchange is what I am attacking here.
I think I'm coming at this from a different cultural position than you are, Mike, because what you detail here about the use of "tl;dr" is not the same as how I've seen it used in other spaces in which I interact.
How I've become accustomed to seeing it used (and even then not often) is where a person who has made a long, considered, well-argued post will also include a "tl;dr" version either at the start or the end. The argument is still available for anyone who wishes to engage with it to read; the work has still been done; the summary is provided by the arguer in order to provide a succinct version for those who might not have time to read the position in full. It is, generally, not written by someone replying who is seeking to allow others to short-circuit the work of reading the argument by stating only the conclusion (or whatever version of the conclusion this replier might offer).
The use of "tl;dr" as you describe it feels to me more like a situation in which someone, in the spaces where I interact, would instead post a meme screenshot of a few text messages reading "i ain't reading all that/i'm happy for u tho/or sorry that happened". This is usually meant jocularly (if honestly) but is sometimes ill-received.
This is perhaps further to say that I am sufficiently unfamiliar with the use of "tl;dr" that you describe that I'm having trouble fully understanding how it gets used. From what I read, I'm given to understand that its most common use case is as a reply to someone who made a lengthy argument, and is written after only a brief scan of the post, rather than considered engagement with it?
I agree with Daniel; most of the time when I see (or very occasionally use) TL;DR, it's at the top of a long blog or comment and provides a summary or abstract of the following long post, so that the reader can decide whether the longer post falls into or outside their wheelhouse of interest. Commenting on a blog or comment after only reading the TL;DR would, to me, be considered rude, though of course the barriers against rudeness in the current society have largely fallen.
But as always, YMMV, and you may be encountering different uses of TL;DR, as someone who regularly writes long, engaging posts and receives copious commentary.
I would really like to strangle whoever came up with the stupid label thought leadership and spread it around. Every time I see it, I just want to slap the person using it. With gloves. On both cheeks. Why do we keep inventing stupid phrases for things that already exist, are already defined, or don’t really exist at all? God I hope it stops a lot quicker than the resurgence of “low rise” or “sagging” jeans did. 🙄
From my experience most engineers have little to no use for the humanities. Engineering is important, no doubt. But the humanities; well, it's right there in the name, isn't it?
💯 Excellent.
tl;dr - don't tl;dr.
Two things, Mike:
1. One of the takeaways of Getting Things Done is to do things in appropriate contexts. If I try to read a NFTC post in the wrong context -- say, over a quick cup of coffee when I have an appointment in 10 minutes -- it makes me very uncomfortable (other blog posts would be no problem). I need to be in the right place and frame of mind to do it. When text is available everywhere, it's easy to forget that.
2. In the past, you've defended your writing style. I happen to enjoy it (most of the time), but there is little doubt that it limits your audience. I write grants for a living and they have page limits, so I've learned to be as concise as possible in my writing. I wonder what a "Concise Notes from the Circus" post would look like.
I am not scolding anyone for not having or taking the time to read my pieces by writing this. I am talking, specifically, about the communicative act of posting "TLDR" in an online forum, in an internal company chat, on social media, in response to something writing a long, thought-out answer. Policing brevity in exchange is what I am attacking here.
Sorry for misunderstanding.
YES!!!