iNow

You’re free to measure anything you want when you arrive home and publish it to the spreadsheet software of your choosing, but unless your personal library offers a properly representative cross section of the entire global population of textbooks… and more importantly, unless it also offers a valid population to use as a point of comparison between modern sizes versus historical sizes, then you’re wasting your time. Why, you ask? Because you’re still dealing with anecdotes (just a fractionally larger set of them) and any conclusions you draw from such a misguided exercise will remain specious.

Ok. Still OT

Ok. You’re right. The difference between textbooks and reference books is like the difference between potato chips and dirt bikes.

The point you’re apparently missing is one raised only 3 hours ago in an earlier post by Charon. The best textbooks tend to be those which can be used as reference books. You’re asserting some fundamental distinction that doesn’t really exist. You're making a distinction without a difference.

It’s also useful that it’s being stated openly like this with eyes wide open. Others will follow his lead, join the chorus, and assert greater pressure/have greater leverage when they are singing from this same one hymnal.

You’re asserting a distinction without a difference here.

It’s going to take more than you simply asserting this for me to accept the premise as valid. Do you have anything more than mere anecdote confirming this increase in book size (calculus or otherwise) is actually happening?

More precisely, writers of headlines and random people like you enjoy claiming that scientists are easily shocked. Further conversation should remain focused on the dinosaur egg as that’s the actual thread topic.

Perhaps then you should open a new thread exploring business school tuition and the relative returns on those investments. At best here it’s off topic… oblique, direct, or otherwise.

I offered no commentary on value or price. Are you asking me to offer some now? If so, please be more specific.

That’s such a simple request to satisfy that I wonder if you’re serious. Shall we perhaps first instead limit focus to global marketing in an age of rapidly evolving social media trends to make it at least moderately more challenging? Or maybe we narrow ourselves to dealing with international tax regulations in law versus in practice, or navigating sanctions when dealing with (or even just sailing cargo near) nations deemed to be enemies, or maybe we should stick to dealing with global data privacy regulations and laws? Asking because your request is too easy, but TBH even limiting ourselves to books on these much narrower topics would lead to fat flowing page counts… or would be if they weren’t all shared mostly as soft copies via PDF. Textbooks are bigger bc we keep learning more (yes, even in business) and students should be able to educate themselves just by reading it / without supplemental instruction.

All indicators here suggest rather clearly that this is a PEBKAC issue

We’re you connected to the internet when you did this? Even if they stopped posting them in May?

+1 for reminding me of my usual SOP to question the premise

This may be news to you, but it’s not new. The numbers you seek are easier obtained on google or Johns Hopkins

It fascinates me that this is the version which came AFTER editing the original. Will you please state this another way, preferably with a more coherent and less broken syntax next time?

Psychology and sociology do a fine job of explaining the belief in angels… and in conspiracies… and QAnon… and that the earth is flat… ad infinitum.

Yawn

Perhaps they only saw you when they looked.

John Dickerson of CBS’ 60 Minutes and Face the Nation has great bumper sticker style slogans for the US political parties: For Repubs: “They’re for commies, we’re for mommies.” For the Dems: “We’re for you, they’re for coup.” I listened to him come up with these on the fly in a podcast and literally LOL’d The “we’re for you, they’re for coup” one came first and the commies/mommies one was an afterthought for balance. Some pol needs to use it

We seem to be aligned. then

It's just that our choices have consequences. We should not conflate consequences from choosing a certain path with lacking choice / lacking autonomy. Those are different in fundamental and important ways.

It may also be helpful to think of historical context here, like how the concerns of female bodily autonomy in important healthcare decisions are regularly ignored. Seems that we as a culture tend to only follow this principle of autonomy when we feel like it and ignore it most other times. I'd also mention people will still have that choice of saying no to vaccinations and shots. Technically, they're still autonomous beings. They just will lose access to important parts of daily life and infrastructure. Same that happens in schools. You don't get to send your kid to public school if they're not vaccinated. You still have a choice of refusing, but that choice means you're also choosing to keep them out of school, but the autonomy is still yours.

No idea. Still irrelevant to my point.

Just so we're clear, I don't find this to be a valid answer to the actual question I posed.