Excuse my irritability, but no one here needs to hear that "one should not leave [the internet] out altogether".

And this is obviously not what Hamming was talking about in 1986.

Just to make it clear, I was agreeing with you for the most part, except that I decided to add my own viewpoint. If that offends you, sorry about that.

I'm not offended personally and hope you feel the same. Let me try to explain what my issue is. I object to the cheap argument for "balance" that commonly shows up when someone is making a specific point. "By all means, let's acknowledge X, but on the other hand let's not throw out Y" -- that kind of thing. I object because it's so unobjectionable. Who could be against it? It just sits there like a big impassive blob pumping lukewarm water into the conversation and diluting everything interesting about it. That is what I felt your comment did. But my annoyance is at the general phenomenon, not at you. That's part of the problem with these patterns; you can't object to them without changing the subject even further (and coming across as a jerk).

The interesting thing in the current conversation is the question of how and why reading articles on the internet is comparatively shallow, more shallow than it would seem like it ought to be from the surface. Speaking metaphorically (and no I do not have "data" on this), it is as if it provides druglike stimulation to some outer layer of the brain without ever reaching the deeper, slower layers where the truly valuable transformations are possible. Or, to change the metaphor, it is like the difference between sugar highs and nutrition. It seems clear that it is an addictive cycle, leading to a starvation problem: we spend so much time at the shallow stimulation that we have little left for deep reflection. It reminds me of rats in a cage pushing a lever for cocaine pellets. I sometimes wonder if future generations will look back on this as an epidemic that took a while to recognize and get under control.