Alas, I haven’t made it through this post. I do not understand what I have made of it, and nor does anyone else I know (except maybe Jacob Falkovich). I do wish there had been real conversation around this post, and I think there’s some probability (~30%) that I will look back and deeply regret not engaging with it much more, but in my current epistemic state I can only vote against its inclusion in the book. Somewhere around −1 to −4.
Fairly surprised this is something you’d actively vote against rather than just not express an opinion on (given the rest of your epistemic state as you describe it here), except insofar as you do general strategic rebalancing.
(I guess it’s interesting to see different people having different senses of what voting algorithm they follow. My own approach is that technical things I don’t understand should be left to other people who understood them. I suppose if you think you understand it well enough to have a sense that if it were true/useful, you’d understand it better, that makes sense)
I guess I felt some obligation to take responsibility for nominating it in the first place, given that I anticipated it was not gonna stand up to review.
Hmm. Well obviously do whatever seems right, but I don’t see why that’d be necessary. I think things’ll naturally just sit towards the bottom of the voting pool. If someone actively likes it they’ll upvote it, and if not not, and I’m not sure what the bad outcome is that’d be worth spending points to avoid.
Alas, I haven’t made it through this post. I do not understand what I have made of it, and nor does anyone else I know (except maybe Jacob Falkovich). I do wish there had been real conversation around this post, and I think there’s some probability (~30%) that I will look back and deeply regret not engaging with it much more, but in my current epistemic state I can only vote against its inclusion in the book. Somewhere around −1 to −4.
Fairly surprised this is something you’d actively vote against rather than just not express an opinion on (given the rest of your epistemic state as you describe it here), except insofar as you do general strategic rebalancing.
(I guess it’s interesting to see different people having different senses of what voting algorithm they follow. My own approach is that technical things I don’t understand should be left to other people who understood them. I suppose if you think you understand it well enough to have a sense that if it were true/useful, you’d understand it better, that makes sense)
I guess I felt some obligation to take responsibility for nominating it in the first place, given that I anticipated it was not gonna stand up to review.
Hmm. Well obviously do whatever seems right, but I don’t see why that’d be necessary. I think things’ll naturally just sit towards the bottom of the voting pool. If someone actively likes it they’ll upvote it, and if not not, and I’m not sure what the bad outcome is that’d be worth spending points to avoid.
Fair enough. Probably will vote on it somewhere between 0 and −2.