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.
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.