You’ve got quite a lot of negative responses to your formatting, not a single positive response (correct me if I am wrong), yet you still persist and speculate about status reasons.
I just found it curious: I’ve addressed typography issues in a blog posting, “Emphasis by Typography.”
I have to say I’m surprised by your tone; like you’re accusing me of some form of immorality for not being attentive to readers. This all strikes me as very curious. I read Hanson’s blog and so have gotten attuned to status issues. I’m not plotting a revolution over font choice; I’m only curious about why people find Verdana objectionable just because other postings use a different font.
If infinite sets and brutely distinguishable elements exist, infinite sets with brutely distinguishable elements should exist. Why? It doesn’t follow.
The argument concerns conceptual possibility, not empirical existence. If actually existing sets can consist of brutely distinguishable elements and of infinite elements, there’s nothing to stop it conceptually from being both.
You have located a place for a counter-argument: supplying the conceptual basis. But it seems unlikely that a conceptual argument would successfully undermine brutely distinguishable infinite elements without undermining brutely distinguishable elements in general.
Then we have a predicate P(Z) = “Z is a subset of X”, and P(X) holds while P(Y) doesn’t. What’s wrong here?
You can distinguish the cardinality of finite sets with brutely distinguishable points. That is, if a set contains 7 points, you can know there are seven different points, and that’s all you can know about them.
Sorry for the perceived tone, it wasn’t my intention to accuse you of anything immoral (although I think you aren’t being much attentive to readers, but that is hardly immoral). I was mainly trying to say that violating the local aesthetic code against the disagreement of everybody who cares to voice their opinion is instrumentally bad. Even if you think that your style makes communication easier, the disagreement of others is a strong piece of evidence that it doesn’t, at least with the LW audience.
As aesthetic preferences are usually difficult to explain or even describe, I probably cannot provide a deep reason why your style is unwelcome. Few particular things I find annoying:
I like stylistic unity, so when everything on the site is one style and one post is another style (yet all the surroundings are original), it is the one post which I perceive odd by default
too many fonts; you have a normal LW headline, then a link in some serifed font, then one paragraph in the standard LW sans-serif font, then the rest of the article in another sans-serif font (or perhaps the same but different size)
the section headlines are larger than the main headline (aaargh!)
blank line missing between sections 1 and 2, other sections are separated by blank lines
the grey background, which is only slightly different from the standard white background and (aargh again) surprisingly missing in the first paragraph and at some (but not all) blank lines; the most annoying thing is that it forms visual boxes which unite the body of a section with the headline of the following section
the red emphasis; on first reading I tend to interpret red not as emphasis, but rather as a text marked for further revision or deletion in a draft
Originally I thought that these “features” accidentally arose when you had copied the text from elsewhere. Now when you are defending the typography, I am curious whether you really have a reason for them all, especially no. 5.
I just found it curious: I’ve addressed typography issues in a blog posting, “Emphasis by Typography.”
I have to say I’m surprised by your tone; like you’re accusing me of some form of immorality for not being attentive to readers. This all strikes me as very curious. I read Hanson’s blog and so have gotten attuned to status issues. I’m not plotting a revolution over font choice; I’m only curious about why people find Verdana objectionable just because other postings use a different font.
The argument concerns conceptual possibility, not empirical existence. If actually existing sets can consist of brutely distinguishable elements and of infinite elements, there’s nothing to stop it conceptually from being both.
You have located a place for a counter-argument: supplying the conceptual basis. But it seems unlikely that a conceptual argument would successfully undermine brutely distinguishable infinite elements without undermining brutely distinguishable elements in general.
You can distinguish the cardinality of finite sets with brutely distinguishable points. That is, if a set contains 7 points, you can know there are seven different points, and that’s all you can know about them.
Sorry for the perceived tone, it wasn’t my intention to accuse you of anything immoral (although I think you aren’t being much attentive to readers, but that is hardly immoral). I was mainly trying to say that violating the local aesthetic code against the disagreement of everybody who cares to voice their opinion is instrumentally bad. Even if you think that your style makes communication easier, the disagreement of others is a strong piece of evidence that it doesn’t, at least with the LW audience.
As aesthetic preferences are usually difficult to explain or even describe, I probably cannot provide a deep reason why your style is unwelcome. Few particular things I find annoying:
I like stylistic unity, so when everything on the site is one style and one post is another style (yet all the surroundings are original), it is the one post which I perceive odd by default
too many fonts; you have a normal LW headline, then a link in some serifed font, then one paragraph in the standard LW sans-serif font, then the rest of the article in another sans-serif font (or perhaps the same but different size)
the section headlines are larger than the main headline (aaargh!)
blank line missing between sections 1 and 2, other sections are separated by blank lines
the grey background, which is only slightly different from the standard white background and (aargh again) surprisingly missing in the first paragraph and at some (but not all) blank lines; the most annoying thing is that it forms visual boxes which unite the body of a section with the headline of the following section
the red emphasis; on first reading I tend to interpret red not as emphasis, but rather as a text marked for further revision or deletion in a draft
Originally I thought that these “features” accidentally arose when you had copied the text from elsewhere. Now when you are defending the typography, I am curious whether you really have a reason for them all, especially no. 5.