I don’t know what ‘obvious’ means.
The post isn’t complicated. It presents simple ideas. It’s not full of complicated jargon.
I think it’s good to have posts like this on LW.
I fully agree.
My comment about the obviousness was partly meant to highlight that it is seldom clear what is obvious and what isn’t.; esp. in hindsight.
Sometimes even seemingly trivial things have to be stated lest some taken for granted non-fact bites you.
I think that this post has a certain quality, that unusual for LW.
I think ‘obvious’ is a word that not bad, but it’s not perfect for naming that quality. Do you have a better suggestion for naming that quality?
You may not have meant it, but I take this to be high praise. I’ve recently been trying to expand out of the thinking framework engendered by LW.
Perhaps, “clarificatory”, “definitional”, “retrospectively obvious”, “frameworking”?
Given that I wrote probably a dozen times in the last months on LW that we should speak more about basics, it’s praise.
The post isn’t complicated. It presents simple ideas. It’s not full of complicated jargon.
I think it’s good to have posts like this on LW.
I fully agree.
My comment about the obviousness was partly meant to highlight that it is seldom clear what is obvious and what isn’t.; esp. in hindsight.
Sometimes even seemingly trivial things have to be stated lest some taken for granted non-fact bites you.
I think that this post has a certain quality, that unusual for LW.
I think ‘obvious’ is a word that not bad, but it’s not perfect for naming that quality. Do you have a better suggestion for naming that quality?
You may not have meant it, but I take this to be high praise. I’ve recently been trying to expand out of the thinking framework engendered by LW.
Perhaps, “clarificatory”, “definitional”, “retrospectively obvious”, “frameworking”?
Given that I wrote probably a dozen times in the last months on LW that we should speak more about basics, it’s praise.