[HN Gopher] Standard Ebooks
___________________________________________________________________
Standard Ebooks
Author : pauloxnet
Score : 322 points
Date : 2024-01-01 11:51 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (standardebooks.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (standardebooks.org)
| Handprint4469 wrote:
| I would love if they offered a download option for a file you
| could just upload to Lulu (or similar service) to have it printed
| and mailed to you.
|
| Every time I buy one of these public domain books from Amazon,
| they are invariably shitty, low-quality "printed by Amazon"
| versions. I miss the time where you could get a high-quality
| hardcover, but more and more those seem reserved only for the
| current week's NYT best-seller books.
| dimmke wrote:
| This could be a cool monetization strategy. I don't really read
| physical books, but the "classics" on Amazon are often complete
| ripoffs. Here's Crime and Punishment for $10 just to get the
| Kindle version: https://www.amazon.com/Punishment-Penguin-
| Classics-Fyodor-Do...
|
| I feel like these open domain novels published by big
| publishing houses have the veneer of legitimacy, but projects
| like the one this thread is about I think could accomplish much
| more. Especially for authors where the work is translated into
| English. Plus the cover designs are much cooler.
|
| I will say, the search on their website is kind of slow and
| could use some work.
| zuminator wrote:
| In fairness though, if you sort by price, you can always find
| classics on Amazon for dirt cheap. E.g.
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Works-Dostoyevsky-
| Punishment...
|
| Although there's no saying as to whether or not they will
| have proper spellcheck, TOC, if they are legitimately in the
| public domain, or even if it's the right book with all the
| pages. That's where a service like Standard Ebooks is
| superior to the potluck you get from Amazon.
| smogcutter wrote:
| Not the greatest example, as the translation is not public
| domain.
| paulcole wrote:
| Why is that book a ripoff?
| cxr wrote:
| Without discounting the point made by smogcutter about
| Penguin's edition not actually being public domain: for a
| classic work, I'd expect to be able to get a paperback for
| less than $10.* And that involves a real-life physical
| artifact which (a) necessarily has lower margins than an
| ebook, and (b) doesn't come with the omnipresent threat
| that it will evaporate from your device (or your managed
| online locker or whatever), nor that you'll have to stop
| reading if your battery dies, nor that you're unable to
| easily hand to someone else to let them thumb through or
| borrow it. For an ebook, $3 or $4 sounds about right. Maybe
| $5 for a relatively modern translation, as in the case
| here. Recall that Netflix in comparison is $X per month
| (fill this is in; I don't actually know, but I know the
| number is not high) and libraries are free-ish. Price
| points at or around $10 per work or more feel like a
| shameless ploy to trigger the sensation of "economy" in
| "false economy" and push people into rent-seeking platforms
| where they consistently hand over a continual stream of
| payments in perpetuity for "unlimited" access--to select
| items within the very limited one month term that the
| payment gets you.
|
| * NB: whether this is actually the case or not is a
| separate matter
| acabal wrote:
| I've considered running a campaign to finance a print run of
| some of our (SE's) books. But the fact is that it's just so
| easy to find super cheap paper copies of these books almost
| anywhere. As long as you buy a copy that was printed before,
| say, 2005 - or from a reputable publisher like Oxford or
| Penguin - then the edition will already be pro quality. (After
| that, it's much more likely that you're buying a print-on-
| demand copy of a raw Project Gutenberg text.)
|
| If we _did_ offer print books, I think the value-add would be
| making them extremely ornate, one-of-a-kind editions like Arion
| Press or Folio Society make, and we 'd charge a lot for a copy.
| But even then I'm still not sure the juice would be worth the
| squeeze, because that's _also_ been done to death... how many
| more fancy editions of _Dracula_ or whatever does the world
| need?
| zopa wrote:
| I think you might be underestimating the value-add---at least
| based on the existence of this thread! Yes quality copies are
| out there, but easy to find for the Editor-in-Chief of
| Standard Ebooks doesn't mean easy for everyone. I suspect
| plenty of people would find a trusted, no hassle source for a
| quality print copy worthwhile, just for the simplicity and
| convenience. Though I totally respect not wanting to waste
| ink and kill trees reprinting something that's already widely
| available.
| acabal wrote:
| Folio Society basically already does this, at a premium
| price. Used copies of well-set PD classics from respected
| publishers like Franklin Library or Modern Library go for
| pennies and can be shipped to your door fron places like
| Abebooks, or you can easily find them at your nearby
| library sale/used bookstore/charity shop/etc.
|
| I've been toying with the idea for a while but I think the
| market is just too saturated, even for premium editions.
| Maybe the focus should be on reviving more obscure works...
| not sure.
| dflock wrote:
| A well run open source ebook project, producing the highest
| quality ebooks. Always looking for volunteers as well as
| donations.
| dalanmiller wrote:
| What's the best way to volunteer?
| acabal wrote:
| https://standardebooks.org/contribute
| dimmke wrote:
| This is really cool. I'm going to donate.
| mmastrac wrote:
| I published a couple of books for the project during a sabbatical
| in 2021 (The Devil's Dictionary [0] and a cheesy, small H. Beam
| Piper book named Four-Day Planet).
|
| The process and tools are quite nice and it's very rewarding to
| see your work in ebook form. It takes a _long_ time to proof and
| re-read a book, but it's surprising how many times you can do
| this and how differently you need to read to catch errors versus
| just enjoying the damn book.
|
| The fascinating part of the project is a _strong_ editorial
| opinion, which IMO makes the project successful. There is a core
| group of people that upholds the standards for the project, and
| the resulting consistency of quality of output derives from that.
| The team clearly cares about the quality, and has demonstrably
| maintained that over the huge number of releases.
|
| I even went to the archives of the "San Francisco Newletter and
| California Advertiser" to collect some of Bierce's original work,
| making it the most complete, and most corrected open-source
| version of the book. [1] The one previously hosted by Project
| Gutenburg was quite old and, frankly, quite riddled with
| transcription errors.
|
| I haven't tried reading the Devil's Dictionary back-to-back since
| I published it, but I might one day. There's a lot of detail in
| this work that I never saw until I had it under a microscope.
|
| [0] https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/ambrose-bierce/the-
| devils-...
|
| [1] https://archive.org/details/san-francisco-newletter-
| dec-11-1...
| NKosmatos wrote:
| For other curious HNers, what differentiates [0] them from
| Project Gutenberg [1] is the improved typography/styling and the
| full usage of modern reader techniques. Think of it like, etext
| != ebook.
|
| [0] https://standardebooks.org/about/what-makes-standard-
| ebooks-...
|
| [1] https://www.gutenberg.org
| chrismorgan wrote:
| So why don't they contribute these things back to Project
| Gutenberg? Particularly the typography ones like curly quotes
| and proper dashes, as those are almost always _corrections_
| where the overly-ASCII Gutenberg source doesn't match the
| original.
| mouse_ wrote:
| Also wondering this.
| acabal wrote:
| Like PG, our editions are blends of other editions, along
| with our own updates. Often our edition winds up looking
| nothing like the PG edition, for example when we combine
| volumes, extract footnotes into endnotes, remove pagination,
| and so on.
|
| So submitting back to PG would be more like _replacing_ a PG
| edition, instead of _updating_ it; and I doubt the original
| PG submitter would like it if their hard work was simply
| replaced by someone else who thought their version was an
| improvement.
|
| Our volunteers _do_ sometimes submit typos they find back to
| PG. We don 't require that, so some producers do, and others
| don't.
| chrismorgan wrote:
| Yeah, I was just looking through _A Christmas Carol_ and
| observed a handful of editorial changes in the commits
| <https://github.com/standardebooks/charles-dickens_a-
| christma...> (bran-new - brand-new, frouzy - frowzy, and
| "Lowercase some gratuitously uppercased words"). Frouzy -
| frowzy I'm mildly in favour of. Ditching bran-new
| definitely loses character (he omitted the d on
| _purpose_!). One or two of the lowercased words _were_
| mildly strange capitalised (e.g. Idol was inconsistent with
| the previous paragraph); but the lowercasing of many
| introduces broad stylistic inconsistency, and direct local
| inconsistency sometimes; and most of the capitalisations
| were _not_ gratuitous. In fact, more than a few were
| clearly to be pronounced, as a form of emphasis (e.g. Poor,
| One, Us); and some were distinctly proper nouns in the
| context, the removal of which increases the parse
| difficulty (e.g. One1, /(Cold )?(Roast|Boiled)/); and some
| reflect customs still common or even _preferred_ in their
| domains (e.g. Act, Angelic, Apostles, Star). I just reckon
| that commit should be reverted, because from my perspective
| it's mostly actively bad, and the rest subjective. I'm
| curious what your reaction is to my opinion here.
|
| But yes, I see that you're practising some editorial
| oversight and not aiming to faithfully represent the
| original in all regards, which I gather is more generally
| Project Gutenberg's goal; and this would obviously
| contraindicate upstreaming.
|
| On the other hand, when it comes to more stylistic matters,
| I tend to wish Project Gutenberg had more consistency.
| There's too much gratuitous variation in presentation and
| ridiculous 256-colour backgrounds. It's often too obvious
| much of it is the work of a group of individuals rather
| than a coherent effort.
|
| I'm curious about the footnote-to-endnote thing, because
| I'm not sure how the various formats in question handle
| them all, but in _print_ endnotes are almost always just
| _awful_. If anything, I'd be expecting to replace endnotes
| with footnotes. (Me, I'm partial to sidenotes.)
|
| --***--
|
| 1 Hickory dickory dock, three mice ran up the clock; the
| clock struck one, and has been charged with assault and
| battery.
| wharvle wrote:
| Yeah, any edition of a book that's "updating" modern
| English loses me, including messing with capitalization.
| Not interested. I love the formatting on Standard Ebooks,
| but they're no use to me if they're "updating" language,
| aside from things like repairing typesetting and
| formatting lost or mangled in PG editions.
|
| Agree on notes in print, side notes (on very-wide
| editions) are best, then foot, then _end of chapter_
| endnotes. Full end-of-work endnotes are awful. Maybe they
| 're better in ebooks, than footnotes, though? E-readers'
| poor UX for not-even-that-advanced features of books is
| part of why I barely use them, and practically never for
| any work that'd have notes of any sort.
| weijiacheng wrote:
| In addition to what Alex has said, as an SE contributor I do
| try to submit errata to Project Gutenberg where I can find
| the time and energy. Part of the problem, though, is that
| PG's errata process
| (https://www.gutenberg.org/help/errata.html) is quite
| cumbersome since you have to write an email to their errata
| team with each individual error. That's a real hassle to try
| to keep track of and submit. Ideally, if PG had something
| like a pull request system, I would just be able to find
| those errors in their code and submit the changes directly,
| but unfortunately they don't have that, so far as I am aware.
|
| That is one major advantage SE has, I think, which is that we
| _do_ allow people to make pull requests against any of our
| ebook repositories and any PRs that get merged are
| automatically deployed to the site. This makes it much, much
| easier for tech-savvy people to submit proofreading
| corrections!
| cxr wrote:
| > Part of the problem, though, is that PG's errata process
| (https://www.gutenberg.org/help/errata.html) is quite
| cumbersome since you have to write an email to their errata
| team with each individual error. That's a real hassle to
| try to keep track of and submit. Ideally, if PG had
| something like a pull request system, I would just be able
| to[...]
|
| On the other side of the coin, Standard Ebooks's heavy
| endorsement/buy-in of GitHub-based workflows are offputting
| to broader audiences. (It's pretty offputting to me, and
| I'm not even non-technical; I just recognize it as a sort
| of Conway's Law + Law of the Hammer sort of thing, and it
| chafes.) I.e., for others what you describe is far less
| than "ideal".
| acabal wrote:
| You don't have to use Github if you don't want to, but
| you _do_ have to use Git. We 've had more than a few
| producers successfuly produce ebooks without using GitHub
| or Google Groups.
| acabal wrote:
| Editor-in-Chief here, happy to answer any questions!
|
| Of interest might be my blog post on how SE runs on a small VPS
| using classic web tech: https://alexcabal.com/posts/standard-
| ebooks-and-classic-web-...
|
| (This post is slightly out of date as there _is_ a database now;
| but it 's used for managing Patrons - and soon a cover art
| listing and approval system - not for serving the actual ebooks,
| which are still served as described in the post.)
|
| Our volunteers have spent the last few months preparing a few
| notable books published in 1928 to be released today, Public
| Domain Day. Those are the top 5 books in the ebook list, starting
| with _The Mystery of the Blue Train_. Check them out!
|
| We welcome new contributors if you'd like to work on producing a
| new ebook. In the next week we'll also have a brand new cover art
| database launched, so if you'd rather help by cataloguing new
| cover art for future ebooks, get in touch at our mailing list!
| Lukas_S wrote:
| This is such a cool project. Every time it hits the front page
| I browse the selections like I'm at a book store.
|
| Have you considered making books sortable by popularity? It
| might be more approachable for new users if they see books they
| recognize at the top.
| acabal wrote:
| That's a frequent request but it would also require having
| our catalog in a database, which we don't have right now. I
| do think the time is soon for doing that for several reasons,
| but there's no spare time in my day at the moment.
| wood_spirit wrote:
| Perhaps there's no need for a db? If you have basic web
| logs, some volunteer can find out how many times a book was
| downloaded etc, and use that to do a one-off "best of 2023"
| etc? A kind of SE Wrapped thingy?
| harwoodjp wrote:
| You could probably drop the server and use Cloudflare Pages and
| a SSG. I use Astro for https://sabine.press/
|
| Edit: oh and Lambda for a total of 2 server functions
| acabal wrote:
| Well, the point is _not_ to jump at the new-fangled tech and
| AWS cloud lock-in :)
| NelsonMinar wrote:
| Thank you for Standard Books!
|
| I remember when Manybooks used to be what you want. But quality
| dropped precipitously with self-published new novels, I suspect
| some money is changing hands somewhere.
|
| What happened to Manybooks? Does Standard Books have a plan for
| avoiding that?
| acabal wrote:
| I don't know anything about Manybooks' history, sorry.
|
| At SE we focus exclusively on US public domain titles; that's
| one of the major philosophical points of the project. The
| other major point is a high quality standard, so it's in our
| best interest to keep pursuing that. SE became known due to
| its quality standard, not because it's more free ebooks.
| Therefore if we strayed from those points then we'd be just
| another free ebook site, of which there are no shortage.
|
| Quality is also why we reject self-published books that have
| been dedicated to the public domain, as those are typically
| low-quality content to begin with. (Though I wouldn't call
| _every single book_ we host "high quality content" in the
| sense that each one is up there with Shakespeare. But books
| that have survived a hundred years tend to have survived
| because they're not slush.)
| ebooks-ta wrote:
| Do you have any thoughts on providing manually pre-formatted
| PDF files? Em-dashes, curly quotes, etc. are all nice, it's a
| step in the right direction, but in the end the EPUB file needs
| to be interpreted by the ebook reader on the fly and in terms
| of typesetting quality the outcome is far from what physical
| books provide, since you still get orphans, weird hyphenations,
| ugly/misaligned chapter titles. For me, nothing beats reading a
| print-ready PDF file.
| acabal wrote:
| That's a common request but there are no plans to officially
| offer PDFs. We offer a variety of reflowable file formats,
| and each format is more burden to maintain; since PDF is a
| famously difficult format, maintaining it would be even more
| burden. A reader requiring a PDF can use a tool to convert
| any of our files to PDF. That's basically what _we 'd_ do at
| the end of the day, anyway.
|
| There's been some mailing list chatter lately on how to best
| format PDF editions, but that's not being pursued on a
| project level.
| veridies wrote:
| I've been eagerly awaiting the new Lord Peter Wimsey novel! To
| avoid burnout, I've been reading them as they enter the public
| domain instead of reading the whole series all at once, and I
| was hoping that it would be in the first batch this year. Thank
| you so much for your hard work!
| pseingatl wrote:
| What are the dimensions produced by se build-images?
| robin_reala wrote:
| The expected size for the JPG for the cover is 1400x2100.
| growingkittens wrote:
| I see that you use public domain images for books - do artists
| also contribute work from scratch (with an appropriate
| release)?
| acabal wrote:
| Nobody has offered as of yet, and if someone did I think the
| quality would have to be extremely high for me to consider
| it.
| growingkittens wrote:
| Do you happen to have a wishlist of artwork or a particular
| project that would benefit from custom artwork? I would
| like to contribute art to the project, whether it ends up
| used or not. I used to work as a digital artist
| professionally.
| acabal wrote:
| Sci-fi works are the hardest to find cover art for as
| naturally there is zero public domain sci-fi themed fine
| art. If you can paint in a fine art style, contact me via
| email and let's chat.
| darkflame91 wrote:
| I have a suggestion: You could optimize the website to be
| easily readable and navigable on the Kindle's web browser, and
| recommend it as an option. I've often found it to be the
| easiest way to get non-store books on my Kindle. I've also
| noticed that cover images are handled correctly when the ebook
| is downloaded straight onto the device, with no need for a
| separate image file.
|
| A hurdle for this though, is that building a good website for
| the Kindle browser is a pain, as the browser's support for
| various html/css/js features and standards is all over the
| place, with no debugging tools available.
| acabal wrote:
| I believe our website does have some basic Kindle browser
| support. The problem, as you noted, is that Kindle's browser
| is terrible.
|
| I say the same thing in every ebook thread: On a purely
| technical level Kindle is a terrible ereader designed by
| people who seem to hate books. Buy almost anything else.
| donw wrote:
| Recommendations?
| AB1908 wrote:
| I imagine the Kobo is high on that list.
| meristohm wrote:
| Kobo, with either stock OS or KOReader (I use this, in
| part because the font size can be easily increased for my
| daughter who so far needs text larger than stock) or
| Plato.
| cxr wrote:
| The page <title> for collections could stand to lose the
| "Browse free ebooks in the" preamble. It makes it harder to
| distinguish when looking at a list of open tabs. Consider:
|
| - "Browse free ebooks in the Encyclopaedia Britannica's Gateway
| to the Great Books set[...]"[1]
|
| - "Browse free ebooks in the Modern Library's 100 Best Novels
| set[...]"[2]
|
| - "Browse free ebooks in the Modern Library's 100 Best
| Nonfiction set[...]"[3]
|
| (Indeed, the titles are even much longer than that. It feels
| SEO-ish; not sure why that would be a priority for a free
| culture project like Standard Ebooks, especially give the
| momentum and cachet it already has.)
|
| Collections should also have placeholders for unavailable
| titles. For example, currently the "Utopian Trilogy"
| collection[4] contains exactly one item, in spite of the true
| size of the set it actually belongs to. When an item is not
| available because of copyright, that (along with the year in
| which SE will first be allowed to make its own edition
| available) should be made clear. Where it's unavailable because
| no one has yet proofed the text for an SE edition, a clear call
| to action can be made.
|
| And it's seemingly minor, but on the subject of editions, I
| wish SE followed closer to the print tradition instead of the
| modern Web millieu and clearly identified its microeditions as
| exactly that: distinct editions of the same text. (Yes, that
| means there are possibly dozens (or hundreds?) of different
| editions, given that errors can be found after the fact and the
| SE house style may even change, necessitating updates. No,
| that's not a problem.)
|
| 1. <https://standardebooks.org/collections/encyclopaedia-
| britann...>
|
| 2. <https://standardebooks.org/collections/modern-
| librarys-100-b...>
|
| 3. <https://standardebooks.org/collections/modern-
| librarys-100-b...>
|
| 4. <https://standardebooks.org/collections/utopian-trilogy>
| devashishp wrote:
| I'm curious, why do you have a policy against hosting religious
| books?
| trillic wrote:
| I'd imagine that if they host one religions books, many more
| religions will come out of the wood work and demand their
| books also be included, leading the site to be largely
| religious texts.
| krapp wrote:
| Numerous sites, platforms, stores, etc. host religious
| books, and that has never happened.
| weijiacheng wrote:
| The site actually hosts several "religious books" (try
| filtering by the "Spirituality" tag -- I've even produced
| several books on religious topics myself for SE). What it
| doesn't host are "Religious texts from modern world
| religions" (what some might call "scriptures," e.g. the Bible
| or the Quran) which is a much narrower category than
| "religious books."
|
| As a religious person myself, I actually think this policy is
| very sensible. Most (nearly all?) religious texts of major
| world religions were originally written in languages other
| than English, and so if SE were to try to host those texts
| the site would have to make an editorial call about which
| translations of those texts are the "best." That quickly
| enters very murky theological territory, where one side of a
| given religion might push for one particular translation,
| whereas another side would push for another translation.
|
| To give the Bible as an example, Catholics and Orthodox
| Christians include the deuterocanonical books (e.g. Tobit,
| Judith, Sirach) in their canons whereas Protestants exclude
| these. Would the SE version of the Bible include these? Some
| American fundamentalist Christians claim that the King James
| Version is the only valid English translation of the Bible,
| whereas the Revised Version (also available in the public
| domain) is based on more reliable Greek manuscripts. But some
| conservative Christians reject the Revised Version and its
| descendants based on certain theological premises...
|
| Do you catch my drift? IMHO it's very sensible for SE to
| avoid these sorts of debates entirely by sticking to books
| where you could argue (with some degree of handwaving) that
| there really is a "best version" :)
| pard68 wrote:
| My thought was that many/most religious works are public
| domain and are already readily available elsewhere.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| Hi and thanks for the great work! Have you considered offering
| .mobi or .azw file formats of the books? With the 2023 browser
| update, even old Kindles now have a fast and functional web
| browser. It is almost possible to find and download Standard
| Ebooks directly from the Kindle browser, but for the file
| format.
| acabal wrote:
| We do offer azw3 files for all of our books.
| https://standardebooks.org/help/how-to-use-our-
| ebooks#kindle...
| carlosjobim wrote:
| Yes, Amazon has changed the game and they only allow
| downloads in .AZW, .PRC, .MOBI or .TXT format now.
|
| I understand that this is their fault and not yours, but
| maybe it could be interesting for you to offer one of these
| formats now that the Kindle browser is actually usable?
| crabmusket wrote:
| Thank you so much for the work you and the whole team, and the
| contributing community, do! I've read a bunch of classics
| thanks to your editions, and have donated in the past. This
| post is a reminder for me to do so again!
| krapp wrote:
| Inevitably, like everyone who rejects PHP frameworks because
| "PHP is already a templating language", you just wound up
| reinventing the framework anyway.
|
| I'm not complaining - It's just, there's a _reason_ everyone
| goes for the existing frameworks and it isn 't addiction to
| complexity. Raw PHP code is legendarily insecure and prone to
| XSS and other issues if you don't do things exactly right.
|
| Nice site, though.
| cowsandmilk wrote:
| > prone to XSS and other issues if you don't do things
| exactly right.
|
| Not any more so than sites with frameworks. I've found XSS
| issues in Java Spring framework built sites that didn't "do
| things exactly right". A framework doesn't magically fix
| that.
| krapp wrote:
| No one mentioned magic. Frameworks are designed to do what
| PHP developers wind up implementing in an ad-hoc, haphazard
| way themselves, and tend to be better at doing it on
| average. Any code can have security issues but I'd trust a
| battle-hardened open source PHP framework over some random
| coder's hubris any day of the week.
| harwoodjp wrote:
| I wonder if a scan -> OCR -> LLM proofreading pipeline is
| possible?
| Forge36 wrote:
| As a first pass I'm sure it'll save some effort (i.e. l -> 1 in
| some fonts). I can't imagine it fully replacing and
| editing/proofreading passes.
| weijiacheng wrote:
| I am one of the SE editors/regular contributors and I _did_
| play around with this a bit for a poetry collection:
| https://groups.google.com/g/standardebooks/c/IUvGLmvZrmM/m/s...
|
| I'm sure someone sufficiently determined and good at prompt
| engineering, and integrating LLMs into a larger toolset, could
| come up with something even better. I'm personally very
| skeptical of LLMs as a technology, but even I have to admit
| that this was a pretty ideal and unobjectionable use of LLMs.
|
| That being said, though it was a fun experiment, I later found
| that it was easier (and less wasteful of natural resources) to
| just do the same thing with a bit of custom markup and a search
| and replace script.
| flxfxp wrote:
| Very cool project. Does anyone know of something similar for
| audiobooks?
| Uvix wrote:
| Any audio recording will have its own copyright separate from
| the base text, so it'll be a while before any quality
| audiobooks enter the public domain.
|
| For now, your best approach would be to take high-quality
| ebooks like what Standard Ebooks offers, and use text-to-speech
| software.
| acabal wrote:
| Librivox creates audiobooks of PD texts. I've heard good things
| about their work but I personally don't listen to any
| audiobooks in general.
| rsanek wrote:
| https://librivox.org/
| wazdra wrote:
| This is very nice ! I'd love to see this for French literature
| too
| andrewedstrom wrote:
| Standard Ebooks is fantastic! In fact, I love what they're doing
| so much that I actually built a little SaaS product on top of
| their ebook collection.
|
| The site is called Modern Serial, and it lets you read books from
| Standard Ebooks in 10 minutes a day as Substack-style email
| newsletters.
|
| https://modernserial.com/
| 100k wrote:
| I'm happy to see Standard Ebooks here! I've read their editions
| of Nostromo by Joseph Conrad and Vanity Fair by William Thackeray
| and the quality great. I recommend it if you're interested in
| classic literature.
| pseingatl wrote:
| What are the standard dimensions produced by se build-images?
| dang wrote:
| Related:
|
| _Standard Ebooks_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32215324 - July 2022 (256
| comments)
|
| _Free and liberated e-books, carefully produced for the true
| book lover_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25138534 - Nov
| 2020 (106 comments)
|
| _Standard Ebooks: Free public-domain ebooks, carefully produced_
| - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20594802 - Aug 2019 (129
| comments)
|
| _Standard Ebooks: Free and liberated ebooks, carefully produced_
| - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14570035 - June 2017 (96
| comments)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-01-01 23:00 UTC)