That’s also likely why WeiDei’s request to get practical examples went unanswered.
Alternative explanation: that comment was made on a Sunday afternoon in my timezone, I have a Monday-through-Friday dayjob that occupies a lot of my attention, and I wanted to set aside a larger block of time to read through the four comments (and surrounding context) Wei linked (1234) and think carefully about them before composing a careful reply. (I spent my Sunday afternoon writing budget on my reply to dadadarren, which took a while because I had to study the “Ugly duckling theorem” Wikipedia page he linked.) In contrast, a reply like this one, or my reply to Dagon don’t require additional studying time to compose, which is why I can manage to type something like this now without being too late to my dayjob.
your post is detached from any empiricsm but about the search of essenses of words.
I don’t think this is a fair characterization of the post.
I need to go get dressed and catch a train now. I’ll ping you when my reply to Wei is up.
If a concept is well worked out, people who read a post should be able to apply it to practical examples themselves.
I would generally think that people who write a long post on a new concept should spend time thinking about how it applies to practical examples before presenting the concept and your suggestion that this needs additional studying time in indicative of the thesis that how the concept pays rent is not well studied.
You’re being bizarrely demanding, and I don’t understand why. Have I done something to offend you somehow? (If I have accidentally offended and there’s some way I could make amends, feel free to PM me.)
I agree that authors advocating an idea should provide examples. That’s why the OP does, in fact, provide some examples (about dolphins, abstract points in ℝ³, and job titles). I also have a couple other cached “in the wild” examples in mind that I intend to include in my reply to Wei (e.g., search for the word eargreyish in Scott Alexander’s “Anti-Reactionary FAQ”). But, as the grandparent mentions, Wei specifically asked if I had any thoughts on four of his comments (which I still haven’t read, incidentally). I can’t possibly have cached such thoughts in advance!
Writing good comments takes nontrivial time and mental energy and given that at least some Less Wrong readers probably have things like jobs (!) or possibly even families (?!), I really don’t think it’s reasonable to infer that someone is incapable of offering a satisfactory reply just because they haven’t replied within a couple days.
I had a really stressful day yesterday. I just got home today. After posting this comment, I want to make dinner and relax and read the new Greg Egan novel for a while. After that, I intend to spend some time writing blog comment replies—to Wei, to Dagon again, to someone on Reddit—and then maybe to some ofyourcomments, if I still have time. (I also need to look up what I need to bring to my DMV appointment tomorrow.) Please be patient with me—although if you’re so dissatisfied by both the post, and my comments so far, then I fear my future comments are unlikely to be that much more to your liking, so it’s not clear why you should be so eager to see them be posted faster.
In conclusion, I’m sorry you didn’t like my blog post about the information theory of dolphins. Please feel free to downvote it if you haven’t already.
Unfortunately, I don’t think your participation here has been a net-positive for the value of the comments section, and (with some sadness) I have decided to add you to the “Banned Users” list in the moderation section of my account settings.
Huh, I happened to glance at the moderation page, and the ban was still there; I guess I must have forgotten to click “Submit” when I tried to remove it the other month? It should be fixed now, ChristianKI.
Alternative explanation: that comment was made on a Sunday afternoon in my timezone, I have a Monday-through-Friday dayjob that occupies a lot of my attention, and I wanted to set aside a larger block of time to read through the four comments (and surrounding context) Wei linked (1 2 3 4) and think carefully about them before composing a careful reply. (I spent my Sunday afternoon writing budget on my reply to dadadarren, which took a while because I had to study the “Ugly duckling theorem” Wikipedia page he linked.) In contrast, a reply like this one, or my reply to Dagon don’t require additional studying time to compose, which is why I can manage to type something like this now without being too late to my dayjob.
I don’t think this is a fair characterization of the post.
I need to go get dressed and catch a train now. I’ll ping you when my reply to Wei is up.
If a concept is well worked out, people who read a post should be able to apply it to practical examples themselves.
I would generally think that people who write a long post on a new concept should spend time thinking about how it applies to practical examples before presenting the concept and your suggestion that this needs additional studying time in indicative of the thesis that how the concept pays rent is not well studied.
You’re being bizarrely demanding, and I don’t understand why. Have I done something to offend you somehow? (If I have accidentally offended and there’s some way I could make amends, feel free to PM me.)
I agree that authors advocating an idea should provide examples. That’s why the OP does, in fact, provide some examples (about dolphins, abstract points in ℝ³, and job titles). I also have a couple other cached “in the wild” examples in mind that I intend to include in my reply to Wei (e.g., search for the word eargreyish in Scott Alexander’s “Anti-Reactionary FAQ”). But, as the grandparent mentions, Wei specifically asked if I had any thoughts on four of his comments (which I still haven’t read, incidentally). I can’t possibly have cached such thoughts in advance!
Writing good comments takes nontrivial time and mental energy and given that at least some Less Wrong readers probably have things like jobs (!) or possibly even families (?!), I really don’t think it’s reasonable to infer that someone is incapable of offering a satisfactory reply just because they haven’t replied within a couple days.
I had a really stressful day yesterday. I just got home today. After posting this comment, I want to make dinner and relax and read the new Greg Egan novel for a while. After that, I intend to spend some time writing blog comment replies—to Wei, to Dagon again, to someone on Reddit—and then maybe to some of your comments, if I still have time. (I also need to look up what I need to bring to my DMV appointment tomorrow.) Please be patient with me—although if you’re so dissatisfied by both the post, and my comments so far, then I fear my future comments are unlikely to be that much more to your liking, so it’s not clear why you should be so eager to see them be posted faster.
In conclusion, I’m sorry you didn’t like my blog post about the information theory of dolphins. Please feel free to downvote it if you haven’t already.
(continued from sister comment)
My reply to Wei is now up. (I finally looked at his four links and didn’t end up engaging with them, but I endorse Benquo’s comment on #4.)
I also left a brief reply to your comment about chronic fatigue syndrome, and a reply to your comment critiquing the paragraph about “poison.” I hope this helps clarify what I’m trying to communicate.
Unfortunately, I don’t think your participation here has been a net-positive for the value of the comments section, and (with some sadness) I have decided to add you to the “Banned Users” list in the moderation section of my account settings.
I’ve now un-banned you from commenting on my posts, because I’ve been persuaded by Said Achmiz’s case that we shouldn’t actually have that feature.
Huh, I happened to glance at the moderation page, and the ban was still there; I guess I must have forgotten to click “Submit” when I tried to remove it the other month? It should be fixed now, ChristianKI.