Fair point—some of the difference in meaning may actually be “in”. If the thought that rot13 was necessary never crosses my mind, I wouldn’t say I am in a state of any doubt on that question; having thought about the question seems to be a prerequisite to experiencing doubt.
If the argument for rot13 were sufficient for me to have thought about it, I think it is better to err on the side of doing it.
“Any plausible/reasonable/etc. doubt” would probably have been clearer, though!
I did consider leaving people’s names off, or limiting them to first names only like I did in Research Deprioritizing External Communication, mostly because I think this is generally good to think about before using people’s full names publicly. But the bar I normally use is more like “does including the name seem harmful”, and this was clearly not.
That seems pretty strong! Do you think I should have done that, for example, with the names in my When Did EA Start? post?
(Possibly I have a lower threshold for “any doubt” than you?)
Fair point—some of the difference in meaning may actually be “in”. If the thought that rot13 was necessary never crosses my mind, I wouldn’t say I am in a state of any doubt on that question; having thought about the question seems to be a prerequisite to experiencing doubt.
If the argument for rot13 were sufficient for me to have thought about it, I think it is better to err on the side of doing it.
“Any plausible/reasonable/etc. doubt” would probably have been clearer, though!
I did consider leaving people’s names off, or limiting them to first names only like I did in Research Deprioritizing External Communication, mostly because I think this is generally good to think about before using people’s full names publicly. But the bar I normally use is more like “does including the name seem harmful”, and this was clearly not.