That word “Ready for adoption”, I do not think it means what you think it means.
I think highly original people need feedback of how their notions are received by (more) general public, specifically when they pertain to the general public.
I should mention that I am PRO cryonics, I just think the technology carries a level of uncertainty that general public is not used to, hence it’s not “ready for adoption” for general public and people who want to promote cryonics will do better addressing this issue (either directing resources to solving the problem and making people more comfortable with the uncertainty) than wishing it away.
In this case, stating in the original comment that you were disputing definition of a word would make the point of the comment much clearer. (Although I don’t see how this revelation translates into an improvement of signal/noise.)
I was replying in the sense of
That word “Ready for adoption”, I do not think it means what you think it means.
I think highly original people need feedback of how their notions are received by (more) general public, specifically when they pertain to the general public.
I should mention that I am PRO cryonics, I just think the technology carries a level of uncertainty that general public is not used to, hence it’s not “ready for adoption” for general public and people who want to promote cryonics will do better addressing this issue (either directing resources to solving the problem and making people more comfortable with the uncertainty) than wishing it away.
In this case, stating in the original comment that you were disputing definition of a word would make the point of the comment much clearer. (Although I don’t see how this revelation translates into an improvement of signal/noise.)