I disagree. There are two types of content consumption/creation in the modern age. There is "flow" and "stores". Flow of content creation/consumption is seen in Twitter feeds or quickly updated blogs. This content isn't meant to last a long time, but corrects and updates minor facts about the world. In other words, it is good to allow quick Bayesian updating of your worldview.

The other type, "storage" of content through creation/consumption is through books, static webpages, or other historical sets of information. This is important because instead of updating former beliefs to be more true, it tends to open up vistas of information.

You can't function without either. As in all things, moderation is the key. Moderation is easiest if you set limits. For example, never set a "flow rate" thats higher than your consumption rate. So, if you use Twitter, make sure that you aren't following 1000 people. Be very careful. If you use an RSS reader, make sure that your feeds update at a reasonable rate (I give myself ~30 minutes in the morning to read them).

The same with books! Don't get sucked into the cult-of-reading. It is a cult, and reading "books" isn't actually useful unless you have a structured or semi-structured reading plan.

I agree you need to seek out worthwhile content, but I think it's a mistake (one I admittedly often make) to have a daily routine of browsing stuff like Twitter/HN/etc. to idly seek out such content. It's easy to feel this is productive when it wastes huge amounts of time and turns up a lot of low-quality content. Imo the low-volume mailing list you mention, and maybe a weekly routine of seeking out other information, is a better approach. Also, I've started going to the library at least once a week, and have been very happy with this new addition.

A good book is weirdly refreshing after reading a lot of the kind of quasi-technical blogs linked on HN. There's so much info! Going back to a Medium post feels like someone found one piece of information from a book (maybe two) and is drip-drip feeding it to you painfully slowly with a clickbait title. At least in the two areas where I most often read books (computer science, and tech history).

> My own answer is mostly HN

But why should valuable content always be centered around "Hackers"?

What news sources would we be reading if we were physicists, or medical doctors, and wouldn't those be interesting even if we don't have these professions?

> Valueless content finds you. Worthwhile content you really have to go looking for, or have a good social network funneling stuff to you.

Really valuable content usually comes in batches, points directly to other valuable content (i.e. good things tend to discuss and cite other good things), and/or is long form. There's no need to look for valuable content every day, or even every week. It might be entertaining, but it's not a good use of time. Exceptions for people who have to keep up with news-cycle garbage and up-to-the-minute trends, of course. Those poor souls.

I waste more time than I should on Internet garbage (ahem) and sometimes I find good new stuff, but if I stopped doing that it'd still take me years to get through the great stuff I've already found but haven't yet engaged with. Plus many things could do with a second look. I'm 100% certain that'd be a better use of my time than looking for even more good stuff on the Internet.

You may need a friend or partner of some sort to finish stuff together. Make your effort accountable to each other.

Doing things alone almost always have that kind of risk.

Yes, probably expecting too much content to find you, all being valuable.

Valuable content will be a very small minority of content.

What the parent means, is that you really need to know, will end up rising from the pile.

Take React as an example. A fine technology, which some might have known about them from 2015 or so, by reading HN every day etc.

But you really don't have too catch them that early -- nor is there that much of a benefit in doing so.

Even with cursory and rare glimpses on technology news sites, or conversations with colleagues, you'll end up learning about React at some point or another.

The "routine looking for valuable content" on the other hand, would just bring in tons of noise (short term fads that die off, useless fanboyism, etc).

That "energy, time, attention, focus" are the most valuable resources out there is not really arguable -- nor does it have anything to do with confirmation bias.

Nor is there much doubt that valuable content tends to trump shorter term fads and trends and find you in the end, even if you don't actively look for it. In fact, that's almost by definition, valuable content = stuff that endures over time, not the latest fad or nth "interesting" article that one can do without.