[asciii]

> To test this theory, try the following experiment. Ask someone who just spent 10 minutes on the Wikipedia article for Turkey for an interesting fact about the country, then ask someone who just came back from a 10 day vacation to Istanbul. Probably both will tell you something equally interesting, with the former being more generally relevant and the latter being more charming or topical. Of course this is wildly unfair—we should give the web surfer 10 days of reading time and ₺100,000 liras to spend as well, but they simply don't need it to win.

Was this written by some AI or LLM because what kind of logic is that? Someone who travels vs. who reads? Is that an even worthy experiment? No..

[geoduck14]

Interestingly enough, I've been to Turkey twice. I know the taste of the food, the gentleness of the people, their hospitality. I got a haircut both times - I lived their style. I had lunch with some of them. I sat and listened to them talk. I toured their houses and walked their streets.

I know a couple of interesting facts about Turkey, but I know things that I can't describe in a Wikipedia article, too.

10/10 would recommend a trip to Turkey

[the_af]

I think the article, even though the author protests it's not that, looks at knowledge and experience as merely an accumulation of things.

With this mindset, seeing a photo on the internet and seeing the real thing with your eyes, after a walk to the location, is "the same". You've seen the thing, you can mark it in your checklist. Google, Wikipedia, and the real physical experience are all the same, you've "gained" the same. Reading about a sports match in Wikipedia is the same as having experienced it live, petting a dog is the same as looking at a photo of a dog, etc.

The author protests this is not what they mean, but ultimately, it seems that's exactly what they mean.

I couldn't disagree more with this mindset.