[EDITED to add: Jonah’s comment used to say just “No, thanks”, which I completely misunderstood.]
I may possibly be mistaking your tone, but if I’m not then I think you are probably making a wrong assumption about the sort of article it is (which is kinda understandable given its title, if you aren’t familiar with Scott Alexander’s taste in blogpost titles).
Would it help if I mention that the author of the article is also the author of what I think is still the most-upvoted thing ever to hit the Less Wrong front page, and the second-highest-karma person on LW? He’s sensible and insightful and very funny, and if you glanced at the URL and thought “oh no, a conspiracist loon” then you should look again: it’s not that sort of thing at all.
I meant “I hadn’t seen the article before, thanks for pointing it out” :-). I have a high opinion of Scott. I’ll modify my comment to alleviate ambiguity.
[EDITED to add: Jonah’s comment used to say just “No, thanks”, which I completely misunderstood.]
I may possibly be mistaking your tone, but if I’m not then I think you are probably making a wrong assumption about the sort of article it is (which is kinda understandable given its title, if you aren’t familiar with Scott Alexander’s taste in blogpost titles).
Would it help if I mention that the author of the article is also the author of what I think is still the most-upvoted thing ever to hit the Less Wrong front page, and the second-highest-karma person on LW? He’s sensible and insightful and very funny, and if you glanced at the URL and thought “oh no, a conspiracist loon” then you should look again: it’s not that sort of thing at all.
I meant “I hadn’t seen the article before, thanks for pointing it out” :-). I have a high opinion of Scott. I’ll modify my comment to alleviate ambiguity.