the editor’s note, mine, is marked with the helpful title “editor’s note”, while the xenosystem pieces about orthogonality are marked with “xenosystems: orthogonality”.
you seem to be the only user, although not the only account, who experienced this problem.
you seem to be the only user, although not the only account, who experienced this problem.
Are you accusing me of sockpuppetting?
I like Nick Land (see e.g. my comment on jessicata’s post). I’ve read plenty of Xenosystems. I was still confused reading your post (there are lots of headings and quotations and so on in it).
I told you my experience and opinion, mostly because you asked for feedback. Up to you how/whether you update based on it.
My bad, I didn’t check and was tricked by the timing. Sincere apoloigies.
How would you suggest the thing could be improved? (the TeX version in the PDF contains Nick Land only).
I was thinking perhaps to add a link to each XS item, but wasnt really looking forward to rehashing comments of what has probably been the nadir in r/acc / LW diplomatic relations
I think it might be fine. I don’t know. Maybe if you could number the posts like in the PDF that would help to demarcate them.
Here’s a timeline if you want to fully understand how I got confused:
I scrolled down to Will-to-Think and didn’t immediately recognise it (I didn’t realise they would be edited versions of his original blog posts)
I figured therefore it was your commentary
So I scrolled up to the top to read your commentary from the beginning
But I realised the stuff I was reading at the beginning was Nick Land’s writing not commentary
I got bored and moved on with my life still unsure about which parts were commentary and which parts weren’t
If the post were formatted differently maybe I would have been able to recover from my intitial confusion or avoid it altogether. But I’m not knowledgable about how to format things well.
the editor’s note, mine, is marked with the helpful title “editor’s note”, while the xenosystem pieces about orthogonality are marked with “xenosystems: orthogonality”.
you seem to be the only user, although not the only account, who experienced this problem.
Definitely not. I second the complaint.
I stand corrected. What do you suggest? See other comment
Blockquotes.
sure? that would blickauote 75% of the article
perhaps I could block quote the editors note instead?
Are you accusing me of sockpuppetting?
I like Nick Land (see e.g. my comment on jessicata’s post). I’ve read plenty of Xenosystems. I was still confused reading your post (there are lots of headings and quotations and so on in it).
I told you my experience and opinion, mostly because you asked for feedback. Up to you how/whether you update based on it.
My bad, I didn’t check and was tricked by the timing. Sincere apoloigies.
How would you suggest the thing could be improved? (the TeX version in the PDF contains Nick Land only).
I was thinking perhaps to add a link to each XS item, but wasnt really looking forward to rehashing comments of what has probably been the nadir in r/acc / LW diplomatic relations
I think it might be fine. I don’t know. Maybe if you could number the posts like in the PDF that would help to demarcate them.
Here’s a timeline if you want to fully understand how I got confused:
I scrolled down to Will-to-Think and didn’t immediately recognise it (I didn’t realise they would be edited versions of his original blog posts)
I figured therefore it was your commentary
So I scrolled up to the top to read your commentary from the beginning
But I realised the stuff I was reading at the beginning was Nick Land’s writing not commentary
I got bored and moved on with my life still unsure about which parts were commentary and which parts weren’t
If the post were formatted differently maybe I would have been able to recover from my intitial confusion or avoid it altogether. But I’m not knowledgable about how to format things well.
uh I see—I’ve put the editors note in blockquote; hope that helps at least to make its meta- character clearer (: