[quadrangle]

The argument is NOT that news is 50% SNR, the argument is that BOOKS are 50% SNR. Effectively, an edited collection of the news over the course of a year has a low SNR compared to that of following the constant stream of instant-news.

The point was expressed badly, but it's about the way that the average quality of new-stuff is a lot lower than the average quality of a curated set of high-quality stuff from a time period.

It's like how you'll see better movies picking out the best movies from all of movie history versus picking even the best of whatever happens to be the newest.

[zerostar07]

My comment was about the logic. And in any case books are not news. It's apples to oranges. Sure they have great information, but it's useless if it's way past its actionable date.

[quadrangle]

Most news isn't actionable.

Anyway, it's like the difference between checking the top voted stuff here at HN versus the newest stuff.

There's also a strange social dilemma here. In order for the curated stuff to have more value and lower SNR, responsible people need to be looking at the newest submissions. So, it wouldn't work if everyone rejected the neophilism, all of us wanting someone else to do the curation while we wait.

A better argument would be that the people who do the curation (the journalists, book authors, voters on submissions etc.) should aim for a higher SNR and stop publishing or promoting low-value stuff. Unfortunately, there's a conflict of interest. It's more profitable to play up whatever random latest story than to cancel or shorten the news report on a slow-news-day…