That’s what I would assume is going on here for the Mazes sequence, as well, although of course you can consider that it leads to those other places etc.
I think for the Moral Mazes stuff we considered just moving the review of the whole sequence to 2020, but I think Ben was thinking through the relevant considerations more than I am, so will ping him on an update on this.
That’s what I would do if I were to review my own sequence, especially given that the post-2019 articles happen to all be part of a subsequence that’s somewhat distinct from all the preceding content.
When writing a review for a sequence that spans more than 2019 (like this one), should I only consider the posts from 2019?
That’s what I would assume is going on here for the Mazes sequence, as well, although of course you can consider that it leads to those other places etc.
I think for the Moral Mazes stuff we considered just moving the review of the whole sequence to 2020, but I think Ben was thinking through the relevant considerations more than I am, so will ping him on an update on this.
That’s what I would do if I were to review my own sequence, especially given that the post-2019 articles happen to all be part of a subsequence that’s somewhat distinct from all the preceding content.
That answer my specific question then. And in general it makes sense to do it. Thanks.