I guess I significantly agree with all of the above, and I do think it would have been reasonable for me to mention these considerations. But since I think the considerations tend to blunt rather than solve the issues, and since I think the audience for my post will mostly be well aware of these considerations, it still feels fine to me to have omitted mention of them? (I mean, I’m glad that they’ve come up in the comments.)
I guess I’m unsure whether there’s an interesting disagreement here.
Yeah, I think I’d agree that it’s reasonable to either include or not include explicit mention of those considerations in this post, and that there’s no major disagreement here.
My original comment was not meant as criticism of this post, but rather as an extra idea—like “Maybe future efforts to move our community closer to having ‘implicit impact markets without infrastructure’, or to solve the problems that that solution is aimed at solving, should include explicit mention of those considerations?”
I guess I significantly agree with all of the above, and I do think it would have been reasonable for me to mention these considerations. But since I think the considerations tend to blunt rather than solve the issues, and since I think the audience for my post will mostly be well aware of these considerations, it still feels fine to me to have omitted mention of them? (I mean, I’m glad that they’ve come up in the comments.)
I guess I’m unsure whether there’s an interesting disagreement here.
Yeah, I think I’d agree that it’s reasonable to either include or not include explicit mention of those considerations in this post, and that there’s no major disagreement here.
My original comment was not meant as criticism of this post, but rather as an extra idea—like “Maybe future efforts to move our community closer to having ‘implicit impact markets without infrastructure’, or to solve the problems that that solution is aimed at solving, should include explicit mention of those considerations?”