The Natural Philosopher wrote:Thanks. I didn't watch that one as probably not being much we didn't
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVJjlwMnz-YAlso the grid engineer who was made to pull his first video on the
TLDR. Despite other factors, ultimately it was renewables wot dun it.
Heathrow outage has now posted a longer video
<https://youtu.be/M0DrLLNfrfI>
TLDR; too much maintenance was ignored or repeatedly deferred
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVJjlwMnz-YAlso the grid engineer who was made to pull his first video on the
TLDR. Despite other factors, ultimately it was renewables wot dun it.
On 23/07/2025 14:26, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:Thanks. I didn't watch that one as probably not being much we didn't
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVJjlwMnz-YAlso the grid engineer who was made to pull his first video on the
TLDR. Despite other factors, ultimately it was renewables wot dun it.
Heathrow outage has now posted a longer video
<https://youtu.be/M0DrLLNfrfI>
TLDR; too much maintenance was ignored or repeatedly deferred
know already.
Today the world is run by beancounters and advertising executives, Who
cares as long as its cheap and looks like it will work?
TLDR? Can't work it out. I know quite a few Usenet-isms, after all this time, >but I haven't seen that before, Go on: make me look dumb, please.
On 23 Jul 2025 at 15:01:51 BST, "The Natural Philosopher" ><tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:Too long didn't read.
On 23/07/2025 14:26, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:Thanks. I didn't watch that one as probably not being much we didn't
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVJjlwMnz-YAlso the grid engineer who was made to pull his first video on the
TLDR. Despite other factors, ultimately it was renewables wot dun it.
Heathrow outage has now posted a longer video
<https://youtu.be/M0DrLLNfrfI>
TLDR; too much maintenance was ignored or repeatedly deferred
know already.
Today the world is run by beancounters and advertising executives, Who
cares as long as its cheap and looks like it will work?
TLDR? Can't work it out. I know quite a few Usenet-isms, after all this time, >but I haven't seen that before, Go on: make me look dumb, please.
J.
On 23/07/2025 22:26, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 16:49:23 GMT, Another John <lalaw44@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Too long didn't read.
TLDR? Can't work it out. I know quite a few Usenet-isms, after
all this time, but I haven't seen that before, Go on: make me look
dumb, please.
J.
Its a very handy way of saying 'if you can't be bothered to wade
through the source material, here is the plot outline'.
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 16:49:23 GMT, Another John <lalaw44@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 23 Jul 2025 at 15:01:51 BST, "The Natural Philosopher"Too long didn't read.
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 23/07/2025 14:26, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:Thanks. I didn't watch that one as probably not being much we didn't
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVJjlwMnz-YHeathrow outage has now posted a longer video
TLDR. Despite other factors, ultimately it was renewables wot dun it. >>>> Also the grid engineer who was made to pull his first video on the
<https://youtu.be/M0DrLLNfrfI>
TLDR; too much maintenance was ignored or repeatedly deferred
know already.
Today the world is run by beancounters and advertising executives, Who
cares as long as its cheap and looks like it will work?
TLDR? Can't work it out. I know quite a few Usenet-isms, after all this time,
but I haven't seen that before, Go on: make me look dumb, please.
J.
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 09:49:48 +0100
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 23/07/2025 22:26, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 16:49:23 GMT, Another John <lalaw44@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Or as a one-word reply to someone felt to be, er, excessively verbose.Its a very handy way of saying 'if you can't be bothered to wadeToo long didn't read.
TLDR? Can't work it out. I know quite a few Usenet-isms, after
all this time, but I haven't seen that before, Go on: make me look
dumb, please.
J.
through the source material, here is the plot outline'.
TL;DR can also be used as a header for an "Executive Summary" paragraph.
It is worth pointing out that when you ask people for evidence, they
often cite long articles of dubious authority. It is essentially the
fallacy of citing turgid bollocks. Stuff that they know no one will
read, and that they probably haven't read themselves. (I'm sure there
should be a clever name for this, maybe wall of text or something?)
A good supporting citation should be in a sweet spot, both length and technical complexity. Obviously that is not always possible, but it is something we should strive for.
On 24/07/2025 09:58, Joe wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 09:49:48 +0100Well yes.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 23/07/2025 22:26, Chris Hogg wrote:Or as a one-word reply to someone felt to be, er, excessively verbose.
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 16:49:23 GMT, Another John <lalaw44@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Its a very handy way of saying 'if you can't be bothered to wadeToo long didn't read.
TLDR? Can't work it out. I know quite a few Usenet-isms, after
all this time, but I haven't seen that before, Go on: make me look
dumb, please.
J.
through the source material, here is the plot outline'.
So many times people ask for explicit references and or detailed
explanations to prove you 'wrong' and then when you give them, they
don't bother to read them...
On 7/24/25 11:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/07/2025 09:58, Joe wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 09:49:48 +0100Well yes.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 23/07/2025 22:26, Chris Hogg wrote:Or as a one-word reply to someone felt to be, er, excessively
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 16:49:23 GMT, Another John
<lalaw44@hotmail.com> wrote:
Its a very handy way of saying 'if you can't be bothered toToo long didn't read.
TLDR? Can't work it out. I know quite a few Usenet-isms,
after all this time, but I haven't seen that before, Go on:
make me look dumb, please.
J.
wade through the source material, here is the plot outline'.
verbose.
So many times people ask for explicit references and or detailed
explanations to prove you 'wrong' and then when you give them,
they don't bother to read them...
TL;DR can also be used as a header for an "Executive Summary"
paragraph.
It is worth pointing out that when you ask people for evidence,
they often cite long articles of dubious authority. It is
essentially the fallacy of citing turgid bollocks. Stuff that they
know no one will read, and that they probably haven't read
themselves. (I'm sure there should be a clever name for this,
maybe wall of text or something?)
In message <no8gQ.1948$eUK2.85@usenetxs.com>, Another John <lalaw44@hotmail.com> writes
TLDR? Can't work it out. I know quite a few Usenet-isms, after all this time,
but I haven't seen that before, Go on: make me look dumb, please.
Too Long, Didn't Read
Adrian
If you don't understand a particular internet abbreviation, there are
plenty of web sites that list them and their meaning https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=imnternet+abbreviations
On 24 Jul 2025, Pancho wrote
On 7/24/25 11:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/07/2025 09:58, Joe wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 09:49:48 +0100Well yes.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 23/07/2025 22:26, Chris Hogg wrote:Or as a one-word reply to someone felt to be, er, excessively
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 16:49:23 GMT, Another John
<lalaw44@hotmail.com> wrote:
Its a very handy way of saying 'if you can't be bothered toToo long didn't read.
TLDR? Can't work it out. I know quite a few Usenet-isms,
after all this time, but I haven't seen that before, Go on:
make me look dumb, please.
J.
wade through the source material, here is the plot outline'.
verbose.
So many times people ask for explicit references and or detailed
explanations to prove you 'wrong' and then when you give them,
they don't bother to read them...
TL;DR can also be used as a header for an "Executive Summary"
paragraph.
It is worth pointing out that when you ask people for evidence,
they often cite long articles of dubious authority. It is
essentially the fallacy of citing turgid bollocks. Stuff that they
know no one will read, and that they probably haven't read
themselves. (I'm sure there should be a clever name for this,
maybe wall of text or something?)
Isn't the making-up-references trick now known as "Generative AI"?
On 24/07/2025 14:20, HVS wrote:
On 24 Jul 2025, Pancho wrote
On 7/24/25 11:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/07/2025 09:58, Joe wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 09:49:48 +0100Well yes.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 23/07/2025 22:26, Chris Hogg wrote:Or as a one-word reply to someone felt to be, er, excessively
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 16:49:23 GMT, Another John
<lalaw44@hotmail.com> wrote:
Its a very handy way of saying 'if you can't be bothered toToo long didn't read.
TLDR? Can't work it out. I know quite a few Usenet-isms,
after all this time, but I haven't seen that before, Go on:
make me look dumb, please.
J.
wade through the source material, here is the plot outline'.
verbose.
So many times people ask for explicit references and or detailed
explanations to prove you 'wrong' and then when you give them,
they don't bother to read them...
TL;DR can also be used as a header for an "Executive Summary"
paragraph.
It is worth pointing out that when you ask people for evidence,
they often cite long articles of dubious authority. It is
essentially the fallacy of citing turgid bollocks. Stuff that they
know no one will read, and that they probably haven't read
themselves. (I'm sure there should be a clever name for this,
maybe wall of text or something?)
Isn't the making-up-references trick now known as "Generative AI"?
Even better: <https://gizmodo.com/replits-ai-agent-wipes-companys-codebase-during-vibecoding-session-2000633176>
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 41:26:56 |
| Calls: | 10,392 |
| Files: | 14,064 |
| Messages: | 6,417,211 |