@Ben Pace Can you please add at the top of the post “Nonlinear disputes at least 85 of the claims in this post and intends to publish a detailed point-by-point response.
They also published this short update giving an example of the kind of evidence they plan to demonstrate.”
We keep hearing from people who don’t know this. Our comments get buried, so they think your summary at the bottom contains the entirety of our response, though it is just the tip of the iceberg. As a result, they think your post marks the end of the story, and not the opening chapter.
I think it would be helpful to mention some sort of rough estimate of how many of those claims Nonlinear believes to be important and cruxy. 70 of them? 20? 5?
Separately, I think it would be helpful to focus on the ones that are important and cruxy. As Kat mentioned, it can take many hours to dispute any one claim. It seems wise to focus on the important ones rather than getting lost in the weeds debating and digging through the evidence for the unimportant ones.
I think it would be good to word this as “and intends to publish a detailed point-by-point response by September 15th,” or whatever the correct date turns out to be.
@Ben Pace Can you please add at the top of the post “Nonlinear disputes at least 85 of the claims in this post and intends to publish a detailed point-by-point response.
They also published this short update giving an example of the kind of evidence they plan to demonstrate.”
We keep hearing from people who don’t know this. Our comments get buried, so they think your summary at the bottom contains the entirety of our response, though it is just the tip of the iceberg. As a result, they think your post marks the end of the story, and not the opening chapter.
I’ve left an edit at the top.
I think it would be helpful to mention some sort of rough estimate of how many of those claims Nonlinear believes to be important and cruxy. 70 of them? 20? 5?
Separately, I think it would be helpful to focus on the ones that are important and cruxy. As Kat mentioned, it can take many hours to dispute any one claim. It seems wise to focus on the important ones rather than getting lost in the weeds debating and digging through the evidence for the unimportant ones.
I think it would be good to word this as “and intends to publish a detailed point-by-point response by September 15th,” or whatever the correct date turns out to be.