I haven’t reread this post (I find it aversive/painful), but for outside view reasons I think you should heavily discount any conclusion or analysis reached by the author of this post, for reasons outlined here and here.
I would guess that the operational details and factual claims are relatively more trustworthy.
You should assume that the author was pretty junior to this type of analysis and not very good at impact assessments or related points.
I haven’t reread this post (I find it aversive/painful), but for outside view reasons I think you should heavily discount any conclusion or analysis reached by the author of this post, for reasons outlined here and here.
I would guess that the operational details and factual claims are relatively more trustworthy.
You should assume that the author was pretty junior to this type of analysis and not very good at impact assessments or related points.