Short History of Nearly Everything

>>8818775
It's very readable, but I've forgotten almost everything I learnt when I read it only a year ago. Maybe that's my fault though.

>>8818775
It's very comfy. Have no idea about the accuracy though and I don't care.

>>8818775
it's not /lit/, but it's good for what it is

>>8819444
>but it's good for what it is
And what would that be? Also nice digits.

It's really reddit but it's a good book

>>8819566
>It's really reddit
>but it's good
Nice oxymoron

>>8819544
pop-science, basically

>>8819235

It's fairly accurate but a lot of mistakes have been pointed out:

http://errata.wikidot.com/0767908171

Some because they were poorly researched, some because they were later proven wrong.

I wouldn't consider it a good book for actually learning about science (unless you literally know nothing beforehand). It's better at detailing the timeline, methodology and people involved in different discoveries.

Are there any decent books like this for history? I pretty much know nothing except the ancient greeks existed somewhere between the dinosaurs and the invention of the iphone.

>>8819687
>pop-science
So it's actually complete garbage?

>>8819720

It's nothing pseudoscientific, it just explains things in a straightforward and entertaining way. For the most part it is well researched.

Do you have an objection to that form of pop-science?

>>8819728
Nah i'm just a cunt