If articles are more efficient, then it means there are plenty of nonsense in books. I don't think good books are filled with a lot of nonsense, if they are, then they are not good.
However, it's a fact that there are a lot of books which are collections of many trivial topics, collections of unrelated articles.
From my personal experience, it's quite useful but not as much as a lot of people thought it would be. The ability solving 'simple' questions is great. I used it more as a smarter google.
For now, it's indeed too small subset, more features will be added later though, I want to make sure all the code that gsubpy can interprete can be intepreted by CPython. So, the a subset of Python is the most accurate name I can think of right now.
This is pretty like the quote from Thomas Huxley: "Try to learn something about everything and everything about something".
But I think people should choose topic carefully it should be fundamental, maybe it's soon unfortunately gone if you choose a trendy and short-lived tech.
I experienced similar things, but not at work, but in life, about trivial things. I often told myself I would do it sometime after, but never. And then, I point a certain specific time to do it, I almost always do it. So I think if you set a exact time point, the probability will get higher.
This is a matter of degree, short video sets the bar lower and encourages the behavior. After all, the reacting videos are only small part of Youtube the whole platform, but short videos are always like that kind of nonsense.
If articles are more efficient, then it means there are plenty of nonsense in books. I don't think good books are filled with a lot of nonsense, if they are, then they are not good.
However, it's a fact that there are a lot of books which are collections of many trivial topics, collections of unrelated articles.