Neither is better or worse than the other, in my humble onion. People have less space and move around more frequently these days, and also, E-ink is more accessible than physical books.

>a physical book can’t piss me off

I'm not certain you've read enough books...

I understand the "I don't have to worry about file compat or ownership (looking at you Sony)" aspect, but surely you've encountered at least one book whose contents you found to be disturbing?

As a counter-argument, an e-reader allows me to read many thousands of classics for the simple cost of the device and connectivity to Project Gutenberg etc. I can read thousands of years of history across tens of thousands of books for an ammortized cost of perhaps less than a penny a book.

To do the same, even relying entirely on a library, would cost me many thousands of hours in transit (and neither my time nor transportation are free) and waiting for inter-library loans. To do so in purchasing the books would cost me tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Similarly, if I am studying a topic that requires access to more than one book, it is far easier to cross-reference and co-consume during longer commutes, or reading outside the home (especially camping/hiking) because the device ways the same regardless of number of books. I could easily carry perhaps 100k books in my pocket if I were so inclined.

Particular textbooks might be difficult though, I suppose, because I know that there is significant effort put in to making them less portable, no access to reasonable file formats, etc, and all of the "value add" in the linked videos, articles, and quizzes. But, I think those are more arguments against the text itself than the medium, unless you're taking a course that requires a specific book that is particularly anti-portable.