Echoing previous reviews (it’s weird to me the site still suggested this to review anyway, seems like it was covered already?) I would strongly advise against including this. While it has a useful central point—that specificity is important and you should look for and request it—I agree with other reviewers that the style here is very much the set of things LW shouldn’t be about, and LWers shouldn’t be about, but that others think LW-style people are about, and it’s structuring all these discussions as if arguments are soldiers and the goal is to win while being snarky about it.
Frankly, I found the whole thing annoying and boring, and wouldn’t have finished it if I wasn’t reviewing.
I don’t think changing the central example would overcome any of my core objections to the post, although it would likely improve it.
There’s a version of this post that is much shorter, makes the central point quickly, and is something I would link to occasionally, but this very much isn’t it.
Zvi, I respect your opinion a lot and I’ve come to accept that the tone disqualifies the original version from being a good representation of LW. I’m working on a revision now.
Update: I’ve edited the post to remove a lot of parts that I recognized as gratuitous yuckiness.
Echoing previous reviews (it’s weird to me the site still suggested this to review anyway, seems like it was covered already?) I would strongly advise against including this. While it has a useful central point—that specificity is important and you should look for and request it—I agree with other reviewers that the style here is very much the set of things LW shouldn’t be about, and LWers shouldn’t be about, but that others think LW-style people are about, and it’s structuring all these discussions as if arguments are soldiers and the goal is to win while being snarky about it.
Frankly, I found the whole thing annoying and boring, and wouldn’t have finished it if I wasn’t reviewing.
I don’t think changing the central example would overcome any of my core objections to the post, although it would likely improve it.
There’s a version of this post that is much shorter, makes the central point quickly, and is something I would link to occasionally, but this very much isn’t it.
Zvi, I respect your opinion a lot and I’ve come to accept that the tone disqualifies the original version from being a good representation of LW. I’m working on a revision now.
Update: I’ve edited the post to remove a lot of parts that I recognized as gratuitous yuckiness.