This is NOT a recommendation of the service. However, I found the blurb interesting to share.
A “systematic revision” is in place, yes. However, I am coming across several terminologies that seem “infructuous” and totally all over the place. I approach the reading (and highlights) to share with the readers. It forms a part of the “global-memory” domain, but I only draw inferences from the context.
We see this principle everywhere. In a subscription business, you’re better off first reducing churn rather than increasing sign-ups. In personal finance, you’re better off first spending less than earning more. In investing, you’re better off first stopping losses before seeking gains.
If we want to get more out of reading, it follows, we should not necessarily aspire to read more, but rather to lose less of what we’ve already read.
These are a clever play of words and don’t end up forking money. I have a massive collection of epubs, but I prefer to read books with a different workflow in mind. I primarily read them for the structure and context.
(Aside, their recommendation for Instapaper is humdrum. My issue with Instapaper is their uncertainty. It has changed hands so many times that the original premise of the service is lost. I agree that it takes money to run a service, but what possible innovation can you get by having a glorified bookmarking service? Highlights? That’s it?