I think you shouldn’t leave, and Habryka shouldn’t have so prominently talked about leaving LW as something one should consider doing in response to this post. LW is the best place by far to discuss certain topics, and nowhere else provides comparable utility if one was interested in these topics. It’s technically true but misleading to say “There are many other places on the internet to read interesting ideas, to discuss with others, to participate in a community.” This underplays not only the immense value that LW provides to its members but also the value that a member could provide to LW and potentially to the world by influencing its discourse.
For your part, I think “quitting in protest” is unlikely to accomplish anything positive, and I’d much rather have your voice around than the (seemingly tiny) chance that your leaving causes Habryka to change his mind.
I definitely didn’t intend to communicate that it should be considered cheap to leave LessWrong (that’s why the next sentence says “I think LessWrong is worth a lot to a lot of people”).
I just meant to communicate that in terms of something like “basic needs” that a person might experience, LessWrong is very rarely a necessary component of getting those filled (which is an important threshold as there exist threats that people face that do threaten your basic needs more, and which hence make sense to be engaged with differently).
Sorry, I mean, my next sentence is literally saying “I think LessWrong is worth a lot to a lot of people”, which seems sufficient to pre-empt that misunderstanding.
I think that section as written is communicating the thing I want to communicate. Of course I could do a general editing pass to make it clearer, but I am not like, seeing anything particularly wrong with what I have written.
I think you shouldn’t leave, and Habryka shouldn’t have so prominently talked about leaving LW as something one should consider doing in response to this post. LW is the best place by far to discuss certain topics, and nowhere else provides comparable utility if one was interested in these topics. It’s technically true but misleading to say “There are many other places on the internet to read interesting ideas, to discuss with others, to participate in a community.” This underplays not only the immense value that LW provides to its members but also the value that a member could provide to LW and potentially to the world by influencing its discourse.
For your part, I think “quitting in protest” is unlikely to accomplish anything positive, and I’d much rather have your voice around than the (seemingly tiny) chance that your leaving causes Habryka to change his mind.
I definitely didn’t intend to communicate that it should be considered cheap to leave LessWrong (that’s why the next sentence says “I think LessWrong is worth a lot to a lot of people”).
I just meant to communicate that in terms of something like “basic needs” that a person might experience, LessWrong is very rarely a necessary component of getting those filled (which is an important threshold as there exist threats that people face that do threaten your basic needs more, and which hence make sense to be engaged with differently).
Then edit it
Sorry, I mean, my next sentence is literally saying “I think LessWrong is worth a lot to a lot of people”, which seems sufficient to pre-empt that misunderstanding.
I think that section as written is communicating the thing I want to communicate. Of course I could do a general editing pass to make it clearer, but I am not like, seeing anything particularly wrong with what I have written.