At first when I read this, I strongly agreed with Zack’s self-review that this doesn’t make sense to include in context, but on reflection and upon re-reading the nominations, I think he’s wrong and it would add a lot of value per page to do so, and it should probably be included.
The false dichotomy this dissolves, where either you have to own all implications, so it’s bad to say true things that imply things that are true but focus upon would have unpleasant consequences, or it has to be fine to ignore all the extra communication that’s involved in what you chose to say in the place and way that you said it—it’s not something created by Chris Leong or John Nerst, it’s something common, and worth dissolving.
And this does that quite efficiently, while suggesting a very good common sense solution that, while not fully specified or complete because that’s not really possible here, seems clearly the right approach.
At first when I read this, I strongly agreed with Zack’s self-review that this doesn’t make sense to include in context, but on reflection and upon re-reading the nominations, I think he’s wrong and it would add a lot of value per page to do so, and it should probably be included.
The false dichotomy this dissolves, where either you have to own all implications, so it’s bad to say true things that imply things that are true but focus upon would have unpleasant consequences, or it has to be fine to ignore all the extra communication that’s involved in what you chose to say in the place and way that you said it—it’s not something created by Chris Leong or John Nerst, it’s something common, and worth dissolving.
And this does that quite efficiently, while suggesting a very good common sense solution that, while not fully specified or complete because that’s not really possible here, seems clearly the right approach.