For the record, real-Viliam approves that this version mostly correctly (see below) captures the spirit of the original comment, with mixed opinion (slightly more positive than negative) on the style.
Nitpicking:
A little ironic to e.g. write a big post about this and put it on LessWrong (like a FB post about how you’re leaving FB), but that does seem like a start.
This thought never crossed my mind. If LW comments on Leverage, it makes perfect sense for Leverage to post a response on LW.
I think that “we get to divorce from the rationalists without leaving the Bay and changing the name of the org and changing our recruitment and donor pools and so on and so forth” might be a fabricated option.
This might be true per se, but is not what I tried to say. By “also, burn down the old website, and rename the organization” I tried (and apparently failed) to say that in my opinion, actions of Geoff/Leverage make more sense when interpreted as “hide the evidence of past behavior” rather than “make it obvious that we are not rationalists”.
In my opinion (sorry if this is too blunt), Geoff may be the kind of actor who creates good impressions in short term and bad impressions in long term, and some of his actions make sense as an attempt to disconnect his reputation from his past actions. (This could start another long debate. In general, I support the “right to be forgotten” when it refers to distant past, or there is good evidence that the person has changed substantially; but it can also be used as a too convenient get-out-of-jail-free card. Humans gossip for a reason. Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior.)
For the record, real-Viliam approves that this version mostly correctly (see below) captures the spirit of the original comment, with mixed opinion (slightly more positive than negative) on the style.
Nitpicking:
This thought never crossed my mind. If LW comments on Leverage, it makes perfect sense for Leverage to post a response on LW.
This might be true per se, but is not what I tried to say. By “also, burn down the old website, and rename the organization” I tried (and apparently failed) to say that in my opinion, actions of Geoff/Leverage make more sense when interpreted as “hide the evidence of past behavior” rather than “make it obvious that we are not rationalists”.
In my opinion (sorry if this is too blunt), Geoff may be the kind of actor who creates good impressions in short term and bad impressions in long term, and some of his actions make sense as an attempt to disconnect his reputation from his past actions. (This could start another long debate. In general, I support the “right to be forgotten” when it refers to distant past, or there is good evidence that the person has changed substantially; but it can also be used as a too convenient get-out-of-jail-free card. Humans gossip for a reason. Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior.)