I agree that much of the language is inflammatory, and this is blameworthy. I disagree that the connection to EA and doing good better is unclear, conditional upon the writer being substantively correct. And historically, the personal blogpost/frontpage distinction has not been contingent on correctness. (But I understand you’re operating under pretty difficult tradeoffs, need to move fast, etc, so wording might not be exact).
Just want to say, I also agree that much of the original language was inflammatory. I think I have fixed it to make it less inflammatory, but do let me know if there are other parts that you think are inflammatory.
In your shoes, I’d remove “egregiously” from the title, but I’m not great at titles and also occupy a different epistemic status than you (eg I think FDT is better than CDT or EDT).
I agree that much of the language is inflammatory, and this is blameworthy. I disagree that the connection to EA and doing good better is unclear, conditional upon the writer being substantively correct. And historically, the personal blogpost/frontpage distinction has not been contingent on correctness. (But I understand you’re operating under pretty difficult tradeoffs, need to move fast, etc, so wording might not be exact).
Just want to say, I also agree that much of the original language was inflammatory. I think I have fixed it to make it less inflammatory, but do let me know if there are other parts that you think are inflammatory.
In your shoes, I’d remove “egregiously” from the title, but I’m not great at titles and also occupy a different epistemic status than you (eg I think FDT is better than CDT or EDT).
Thanks for this comment — I left a longer reply here.