I thought this was fantastic, very thought-provoking. One possibly easy thing that I think would be great would be links to a few posts that you think have used this strategy with success.
Many of the abstraction research posts used this strategy. I was trying to pump out updates at least ~weekly, and most weeks I didn’t have a proof for a new theorem or anything like that. The best I could do was explain whatever I was thinking about, and why it seemed interesting/important.
I thought this was fantastic, very thought-provoking. One possibly easy thing that I think would be great would be links to a few posts that you think have used this strategy with success.
Drawing from my own posts:
Many of the abstraction research posts used this strategy. I was trying to pump out updates at least ~weekly, and most weeks I didn’t have a proof for a new theorem or anything like that. The best I could do was explain whatever I was thinking about, and why it seemed interesting/important.
Some of my best posts (IMO) came from looking at why I believed some idea, finding a ball of illegible intuitions, and untangling that ball. The constraints/scarcity posts all came from that process, the review of Design Principles of Biological Circuits came from that process, Everyday Lessons From High-Dimensional Optimization and various posts on gears-level models came from that process, Whats So Bad About Ad-Hoc Mathematical Definitions? came from this process, probably many others.
Core Pathways of Aging would never have been finished if I’d tried to hunt down every source.