It looks like the posts Security amplification and Meta-execution belong to the sequence, but don’t show up in the sequence overview.
Hmm, plausible. What caused you to come to the believe that they should be part of the sequence? (The second one in particular is deliberately unlisted).
When I look at the bottom of https://www.lesswrong.com/s/EmDuGeRw749sD3GKd/p/6fMvGoyy3kgnonRNM, it says:
The next post in this sequence will be ‘Security Amplification’ by Paul Christiano, on Saturday 2nd Feb.
And when I look at the bottom of this article (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hjEaZgyQ2iprDhkg8/security-amplification), it says:
The next post in sequence will be released on Friday 8th Feb, and will be ‘Meta-excution’ by Paul Christiano.
Since the articles’ text indicates that they’re part of the sequence, one might think that they should be listed in the overview.
I might have had reasons to write the above based on the articles’ contents, but I don’t remember those.
Yep, I think you are correct. I will add them to the sequence in the appropriate place.
Thanks!
Current theme: default
Less Wrong (text)
Less Wrong (link)
It looks like the posts Security amplification and Meta-execution belong to the sequence, but don’t show up in the sequence overview.
Hmm, plausible. What caused you to come to the believe that they should be part of the sequence? (The second one in particular is deliberately unlisted).
When I look at the bottom of https://www.lesswrong.com/s/EmDuGeRw749sD3GKd/p/6fMvGoyy3kgnonRNM, it says:
And when I look at the bottom of this article (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hjEaZgyQ2iprDhkg8/security-amplification), it says:
Since the articles’ text indicates that they’re part of the sequence, one might think that they should be listed in the overview.
I might have had reasons to write the above based on the articles’ contents, but I don’t remember those.
Yep, I think you are correct. I will add them to the sequence in the appropriate place.
Thanks!