Ben made a bunch of other changes the day of publication. I know that because I pointed out errors in his post that day, and he was correcting them based on me pointing them out (e.g., all of his original quotes from glassdoor that he claimed were about Emerson were not actually about Emerson, which he didn’t realize until I pointed it out, and then he rushed to find new quotes to correct it). I’m sure he had a lot on his mind at that time, so I don’t think it’s egregious that he didn’t add mention of the fact that he had screen shot counter evidence about the “no food while sick stuff”, but it clearly seems to me to be a mistake on his part to not adjust the post or at least acknowledge it in the post. And I know he received the screenshots because he acknowledged getting them. You’re saying it made it into a comment as though Ben gets credit for that—but wasn’t it Kat who posted that comment? He also chose to rush the post out that night despite knowing there was counter evidence. I was honestly shocked he was trying to rush the post out that night because of all the errors I was finding in his post, which I expressed to Ben that day.
Update: I only just saw this point you made, including here for context and because it helps answer what I said: “since publishing this post required coordinating with many (5-10) external sources and witnesses, with many of them having a strong preference for a concrete time for the post to be published and they can plan around, so they can get ready for any potential retaliation and fallout. “
Update 2: “Spencer and Nonlinear knew the claims we were planning to put into the post on this matter roughly a week in-advance.” I’m not sure what you’re basing this on, but this is not accurate. I saw the post on Sept 6 for the first time and Ben published it early morning of Sept 7. During that short gap I sought to help him correct some errors in the post, which he did.
Update 3: the post was indeed being edited in meaningful ways on Sept 6, I know because I was helping Ben identify mistakes he had made and he was making changes based on that (such as the glass door misattribution)
Update 2: “Spencer and Nonlinear knew the claims we were planning to put into the post on this matter roughly a week in-advance.” I’m not sure what you’re basing this on, but this is not accurate. I saw the post on Sept 6 for the first time and Ben published it early morning of Sept 7. During that short gap I sought to help him correct some errors in the post, which he did.
Sorry, I had assumed that Nonlinear had shared with you the document we shared with them before publication of the post. My Slack records indicate Ben had two calls with you in the week before publication, and my guess based on the feedback I see from you paraphrased and copied in the Slack, is that you were aware of the claims in the post.
I might be wrong here and the Slack records could just align in a kind of confusing way (I can’t find the date of your first call with Ben, but am confident there was one more than 24 hours before publication), in which case I apologize.
Yes, Ben was making changes the day of the publication, I don’t think I said otherwise?
I also think sending something 2 hours before publication is again different from that (like clearly we can at least agree that if you had sent it 15 minutes before the publication time that it would not have been reasonable to say that Ben had access to information during the writing of the post that didn’t make it into the post?).
I really would not describe the post as being “rushed out”. The post had been worked on for over 1000 hours. I also think you are overstating “all the errors you were pointing out”. You pointed out two things which to me still seem relatively minor.
I think if Kat hadn’t posted the screenshots in a comment, Ben would have left a comment or edited the post. We really tried pretty hard to include anything that was sent to us, and I think Ben managed to include a lot of information and epistemic nuance in the post, while still maintaining the basics of readability and clarity.
When we did a postmortem on it, somewhat over 1000 hours is how high the total staff cost seemed to us, and that was a few months ago.
I think it’s totally plausible that in a few places I or someone else on the team used a lower number that they felt more confident in. In-general the structure of “over X” is something I usually use when I am not sure about X, but want to give a quick lower bound that allows me to move ahead with the argument, so it seems totally possible that in another context I would have said “multiple hundreds of hours” or “300+” hours or something like that, because that was enough to prove the point at hand.
Edit: Oh, I see the links now, didn’t see them when I first wrote the comment.
I kept wanting to just share what I’d learned. I ended up spending about ~320 hours (two months of work), over the span of six calendar months, to get to a place where I was personally confident of the basic dynamics (even though I expect I have some of the details wrong), and that Alice and Chloe felt comfortable with my publishing.
I think the key difference with that quote and my number is that it just includes Ben’s time, as opposed to total staff time. For example, it omits work done by anyone else on the team (which roughly doubles the total amount of time spent, spread across me, Robert and Ruby), as well as others who we’ve brought on board to help with the post (we worked with 2-3 external collaborators who ended up pairing with Ben for multiple weeks).
My guess is also Ben’s number is a bit low for his own time spent on it, though I think we are now getting into definitions of what counts as “working on it”. We don’t have detailed time tracking, so this is a bit hard to operationalize, but my guess is if you added up all the staff time of Lightcone staff and external collaborators, and removed the project of writing the Nonlinear post, you would indeed end up with somewhat more than a thousand hours of additional free time across those people.
Thanks. I didn’t mean my comment to come across as a “gotcha” question fwiw (not saying that you said it was a gotcha question, but I realized after I commented that it’d be a reasonable interpretation of my comment).
For what it’s worth, I find it extremely plausible that a post like this both took an inordinately large amount of time, and that people will systematically underestimate how much it took before they started doing more accurate time-tracking.
It does seem very sad that the voting on this post seems a bit broken (it also seemed broken on the original Nonlinear post). Like, do people think I am lying about the amount of hours it took? I would be happy to provide the data that I have, or have someone else who is more independent to the Lightcone team provide an estimate. It seems very weird to downvote an answer to a straightforward question like that.
Hmm, well Ben said “(for me) a 100-200 hour investigation” in the first post, then said he spent “~320 hours” in the second. Maybe people thought you should’ve addressed that discrepancy?️ Edit: the alternative―some don’t like your broader stance and are clicking disagree on everything. Speaking of which, I wonder if you updated based on Spencer’s points?
Edit: Oh, I see the links now, didn’t see them when I first wrote the comment.
Apologies, that was my fault. I wrote the comment and then I realized that I was demonstrating poor reasoning transparency, so then I hunted down the relevant links. My guess of chronology was that I had the hyperlinks added in after you started commenting, but before your reply was visible.
Ah, cool, I was really surprised when I saw the links on refresh, but they fit so naturally into the comment that I thought they clearly must have been there in the first place.
Ben made a bunch of other changes the day of publication. I know that because I pointed out errors in his post that day, and he was correcting them based on me pointing them out (e.g., all of his original quotes from glassdoor that he claimed were about Emerson were not actually about Emerson, which he didn’t realize until I pointed it out, and then he rushed to find new quotes to correct it). I’m sure he had a lot on his mind at that time, so I don’t think it’s egregious that he didn’t add mention of the fact that he had screen shot counter evidence about the “no food while sick stuff”, but it clearly seems to me to be a mistake on his part to not adjust the post or at least acknowledge it in the post. And I know he received the screenshots because he acknowledged getting them. You’re saying it made it into a comment as though Ben gets credit for that—but wasn’t it Kat who posted that comment? He also chose to rush the post out that night despite knowing there was counter evidence. I was honestly shocked he was trying to rush the post out that night because of all the errors I was finding in his post, which I expressed to Ben that day.
Update: I only just saw this point you made, including here for context and because it helps answer what I said: “since publishing this post required coordinating with many (5-10) external sources and witnesses, with many of them having a strong preference for a concrete time for the post to be published and they can plan around, so they can get ready for any potential retaliation and fallout. “
Update 2: “Spencer and Nonlinear knew the claims we were planning to put into the post on this matter roughly a week in-advance.” I’m not sure what you’re basing this on, but this is not accurate. I saw the post on Sept 6 for the first time and Ben published it early morning of Sept 7. During that short gap I sought to help him correct some errors in the post, which he did.
Update 3: the post was indeed being edited in meaningful ways on Sept 6, I know because I was helping Ben identify mistakes he had made and he was making changes based on that (such as the glass door misattribution)
Sorry, I had assumed that Nonlinear had shared with you the document we shared with them before publication of the post. My Slack records indicate Ben had two calls with you in the week before publication, and my guess based on the feedback I see from you paraphrased and copied in the Slack, is that you were aware of the claims in the post.
I might be wrong here and the Slack records could just align in a kind of confusing way (I can’t find the date of your first call with Ben, but am confident there was one more than 24 hours before publication), in which case I apologize.
Yes, Ben was making changes the day of the publication, I don’t think I said otherwise?
I also think sending something 2 hours before publication is again different from that (like clearly we can at least agree that if you had sent it 15 minutes before the publication time that it would not have been reasonable to say that Ben had access to information during the writing of the post that didn’t make it into the post?).
I really would not describe the post as being “rushed out”. The post had been worked on for over 1000 hours. I also think you are overstating “all the errors you were pointing out”. You pointed out two things which to me still seem relatively minor.
I think if Kat hadn’t posted the screenshots in a comment, Ben would have left a comment or edited the post. We really tried pretty hard to include anything that was sent to us, and I think Ben managed to include a lot of information and epistemic nuance in the post, while still maintaining the basics of readability and clarity.
Is it just me or does the number keep going up with every retelling?
When we did a postmortem on it, somewhat over 1000 hours is how high the total staff cost seemed to us, and that was a few months ago.
I think it’s totally plausible that in a few places I or someone else on the team used a lower number that they felt more confident in. In-general the structure of “over X” is something I usually use when I am not sure about X, but want to give a quick lower bound that allows me to move ahead with the argument, so it seems totally possible that in another context I would have said “multiple hundreds of hours” or “300+” hours or something like that, because that was enough to prove the point at hand.
Edit: Oh, I see the links now, didn’t see them when I first wrote the comment.
I think the key difference with that quote and my number is that it just includes Ben’s time, as opposed to total staff time. For example, it omits work done by anyone else on the team (which roughly doubles the total amount of time spent, spread across me, Robert and Ruby), as well as others who we’ve brought on board to help with the post (we worked with 2-3 external collaborators who ended up pairing with Ben for multiple weeks).
My guess is also Ben’s number is a bit low for his own time spent on it, though I think we are now getting into definitions of what counts as “working on it”. We don’t have detailed time tracking, so this is a bit hard to operationalize, but my guess is if you added up all the staff time of Lightcone staff and external collaborators, and removed the project of writing the Nonlinear post, you would indeed end up with somewhat more than a thousand hours of additional free time across those people.
Thanks. I didn’t mean my comment to come across as a “gotcha” question fwiw (not saying that you said it was a gotcha question, but I realized after I commented that it’d be a reasonable interpretation of my comment).
For what it’s worth, I find it extremely plausible that a post like this both took an inordinately large amount of time, and that people will systematically underestimate how much it took before they started doing more accurate time-tracking.
It does seem very sad that the voting on this post seems a bit broken (it also seemed broken on the original Nonlinear post). Like, do people think I am lying about the amount of hours it took? I would be happy to provide the data that I have, or have someone else who is more independent to the Lightcone team provide an estimate. It seems very weird to downvote an answer to a straightforward question like that.
Hmm, well Ben said “(for me) a 100-200 hour investigation” in the first post, then said he spent “~320 hours” in the second. Maybe people thought you should’ve addressed that discrepancy?️ Edit: the alternative―some don’t like your broader stance and are clicking disagree on everything. Speaking of which, I wonder if you updated based on Spencer’s points?
Apologies, that was my fault. I wrote the comment and then I realized that I was demonstrating poor reasoning transparency, so then I hunted down the relevant links. My guess of chronology was that I had the hyperlinks added in after you started commenting, but before your reply was visible.
Sorry if that burned extra time on your end. :)
Ah, cool, I was really surprised when I saw the links on refresh, but they fit so naturally into the comment that I thought they clearly must have been there in the first place.
No worries, it cost me like 3 minutes.