You also have to accept that you simply aren't going to ever be able to know everything about everything that you'd like to; you will have to make choices, pick and choose.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. You seem to be arguing against something nobody (certainly not me) said.
We all know that only by actually reading something will you know if it was worth the effort. The problem is that, for any non-trivial subject, there is more material available, and more material being generated, than anyone can cover in endless lifetimes.
Some form of curation is needed just to even know what exists, let alone to know what's worth reading.
Accepting that, would you then rather memorize a pile of summaries and tidbits and factoids, or would you rather take the time to read and consider a complete discourse on a subject?
Where does this false choice come from? I do not want to memorize a pile of summaries, and it's in fact impossible to consume a complete discourse on a (non-trivial) subject. Those are not the only options.
What I want are some heuristics to help guide me on what to read. Summaries are one tool; recommendations are another. HN discussion threads yet one more. Few people would pretend that any of these substitute for reading the source material.
I'll grant that there are people who consume summaries as a ploy to feign erudition, but honestly I don't think that's the motivation on HN when people ask for a tl;dr.
In fact, if someone were to try to read everything and not use summaries, etc. as a guide they would end up with very little understanding because, odds are, they would be consuming a fair amount of shoddy material to the exclusion of better content.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. You seem to be arguing against something nobody (certainly not me) said.
We all know that only by actually reading something will you know if it was worth the effort. The problem is that, for any non-trivial subject, there is more material available, and more material being generated, than anyone can cover in endless lifetimes.
Some form of curation is needed just to even know what exists, let alone to know what's worth reading.
Accepting that, would you then rather memorize a pile of summaries and tidbits and factoids, or would you rather take the time to read and consider a complete discourse on a subject?
Where does this false choice come from? I do not want to memorize a pile of summaries, and it's in fact impossible to consume a complete discourse on a (non-trivial) subject. Those are not the only options.
What I want are some heuristics to help guide me on what to read. Summaries are one tool; recommendations are another. HN discussion threads yet one more. Few people would pretend that any of these substitute for reading the source material.
I'll grant that there are people who consume summaries as a ploy to feign erudition, but honestly I don't think that's the motivation on HN when people ask for a tl;dr.
In fact, if someone were to try to read everything and not use summaries, etc. as a guide they would end up with very little understanding because, odds are, they would be consuming a fair amount of shoddy material to the exclusion of better content.