A few of the clearest examples are listed below, though I can point to countless others
Yes, I would certainly love to read more, in a format longer than the bullet points you made here (but maybe shorter than the original Sequences?).
If you believe (it seems to me that correctly) that some lessons from the Sequences are frequently misunderstood, then it probably makes sense to make the explanations very clear, with several specific examples, a summary at the end… simply, if they were misinterpreted once, it seems like there is a specific attractor in the idea-space, and that attractor will act with the same force on your clarifications, so you need do defend hard against it. So please do err on the side of providing more specific examples and further dumbing it down for audience such as me. (Also, clearly spell out the specific misunderstanding you are trying to avoid, and highlight the difference. Maybe as a separate section at the end of the article.)
If this idea seems interesting, I’ll probably be writing my own series of posts in the format of “Reading [Post from the Sequences] As If It Were Written Today.”
Definitely interesting! Not sure if 1:1 correspondence is optimal (one article of yours per one article of the original Sequences). The information density varies and so does the article length; sometimes it might make more sense to read two or three articles at the same time; sometimes it might make sense to address two important points from the same article separately. Up to you; just saying that if you start with this format, don’t feel like you have to stick with all the time.
Yes, I would certainly love to read more, in a format longer than the bullet points you made here (but maybe shorter than the original Sequences?).
If you believe (it seems to me that correctly) that some lessons from the Sequences are frequently misunderstood, then it probably makes sense to make the explanations very clear, with several specific examples, a summary at the end… simply, if they were misinterpreted once, it seems like there is a specific attractor in the idea-space, and that attractor will act with the same force on your clarifications, so you need do defend hard against it. So please do err on the side of providing more specific examples and further dumbing it down for audience such as me. (Also, clearly spell out the specific misunderstanding you are trying to avoid, and highlight the difference. Maybe as a separate section at the end of the article.)
Definitely interesting! Not sure if 1:1 correspondence is optimal (one article of yours per one article of the original Sequences). The information density varies and so does the article length; sometimes it might make more sense to read two or three articles at the same time; sometimes it might make sense to address two important points from the same article separately. Up to you; just saying that if you start with this format, don’t feel like you have to stick with all the time.
Thanks for the support. I’ll try and work a bit more on my first post in the coming days and I hope it will be up soon.