Interesting Links for 07-03-2025

[andrewducker]

1. Denmark's postal service to stop delivering letters

(tags:denmark mail )

2. How the Danish cracked work-life balance

(tags:denmark working_hours work life )

3. The Closely Guarded Secrets Of Manhattan Doormen

(tags:usa money jobs )

4. Masterplan for new Edinburgh village Redheughs reveals 1,300 homes, community hub, central square and primary school

(tags:Edinburgh housing )

5. Four Reasons Why English Should Not be the Official Language of the United States

(tags:language usa English )

6. War heroes and military firsts are among 26,000 images flagged for removal in Pentagon's DEI purge

(tags:usa OhForFucksSake military women )

7. Starlink's European rival Eutelsat says it can do the job in Ukraine

(tags:ukraine space communication europe )

8. How much do Britons read?

(tags:uk reading polls )

Comments

Reading poll

[wildeabandon]

I find it very odd that 'by size' is the most common way people organise their books.

I mean, I suppose technically we have one shelf with the dozen or so books that are too tall to fit on the main shelves, but is that what they mean, or are there actually a lot of people who put their books in size order, and if so, why would you do that?

Re: Reading poll

[magedragonfire]

I'm guessing it's both that - oversizers get their own big shelf - and then hardcovers/trade paperbacks vs MM paperbacks?

If it's people sorting by spine width or something, though, I got nothin'.

Re: Reading poll

[channelpenguin]

Maybe if you only have a very few books and not a lot of space, by size might make sense.

I DON'T organise my books particularly at all. I used to have a great, great many, now I have few. I NEVER organised them except to split fiction from non fiction and put the same author together. I never sorted CDs except to put all by the same artist together either. I bought so many, so frequently, that I absolutely could not be arsed to alphabetise, given the frequent reorg that would have needed, and they just went wherever there currently was room. My memory was always up to knowing where they were, even when I had an entire room full of bookshelves.

I was super quick to get my CDs digitised and also books, films because then additions are auto sorting. I use a folder/file name convention and the bare file system, I do NOT use apps that catalogue.

Re: Reading poll

[hilarita]

Well, the UL does, in order to make best use of its shelves. Strictly, it's not size order, it's binning by size.
But it's probably fairly common to have multiple sorting criteria in play: e.g. a primary sorting by genre (as Dewey decimal effectively does), or by genre then size (UL - which then sorts by accession date, which helps to keep things findable in a library that is growing year on year at a rapid rate), or by genre then alphabetically (my primary sorting mechanism, except for oversize books).

Re: Reading poll

[agoodwinsmith]

Well, I am warned when purchasing cheapie bookcases to put more weight on the bottom shelves than the top shelves. That'll do it.

Re: Reading poll

[anna_wing]

I sort by both subject and size. Fiction is sorted into hardbacks, paperbacks and oversized paperbacks and then alphabetically within each category. Non-fiction is sorted by subject regardless of size and format. The shelves in my library are adjustable, so it works reasonably well.

[doug]

1. Denmark's postal service to stop delivering letters
2. How the Danish cracked work-life balance

... I am still struggling, some time after seeing this juxtaposition, to get rid of the idea that these two developments are somehow related.