When I wrote this comment, I also wrote the following.
I’ve noticed a difference between a few types of apologies: i) I regret that I took the action and think that I should not have, ii) I think I made the right call with the information I had at the time, but it’s turned out bad and I regret that, and iii) I think I made the right call, but I regret the necessary negative consequences. It seems to me you’re claiming iii, which makes it weird to be under mistakes.
I now think you maybe did mean it as i or ii? Specifically
While often this was the right trade-off
Implies that sometimes it was the right call and sometimes it wasn’t. This is pretty nit-pick-y but if you agree it’s not type iii, maybe you could change it to
While often this was the right trade-off for Leverage 1.0 where the focus was advancing our ideas, sometimes it wasn’t and in either case this makes the job of communicating our work moving forward challenging.
Yeah this makes sense, thanks for asking for clarification. The communication section is meant to be a mixture of i) and ii). I think in many cases it was the right decision for Leverage not to prioritise publishing a lot of their research where doing so wouldn’t have been particularly useful. However we think it was a mistake to do some public communication and then remove it, and not to figure out how to communicate about more of our work.
I’m not sure what the best post etiquette is here, should I just edit the post to put in your suggestion and note that the post was edited based on comments?
Thanks for the clarification and tolerating the nitpick. I don’t know that anyone has an etiquette book for this, but I’d put a footnote with the update.[1]
[1] In the fullness of time we’ll have built in footnotes in our rich-text editor, but for now you can do hacky footnotes like this.
When I wrote this comment, I also wrote the following.
I now think you maybe did mean it as i or ii? Specifically
Implies that sometimes it was the right call and sometimes it wasn’t. This is pretty nit-pick-y but if you agree it’s not type iii, maybe you could change it to
Yeah this makes sense, thanks for asking for clarification. The communication section is meant to be a mixture of i) and ii). I think in many cases it was the right decision for Leverage not to prioritise publishing a lot of their research where doing so wouldn’t have been particularly useful. However we think it was a mistake to do some public communication and then remove it, and not to figure out how to communicate about more of our work.
I’m not sure what the best post etiquette is here, should I just edit the post to put in your suggestion and note that the post was edited based on comments?
Thanks for the clarification and tolerating the nitpick. I don’t know that anyone has an etiquette book for this, but I’d put a footnote with the update.[1]
[1] In the fullness of time we’ll have built in footnotes in our rich-text editor, but for now you can do hacky footnotes like this.
Perfect, thank you. I’ve edited it and added a footnote.