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.
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.