the quotations from the NPR story about the kids was value-add for me because I’d wanted to get that info but kept forgetting
Nate Silver is my mans but I have Twitter blocked because it’s an attention hazard
the point about the North Austrian government was a new model/framework/whatever that I hadn’t thought about before
it’s good to keep hammering how messed up the Paxlovid situation is during this liminal phase
the only thing I’ve read during COVID that was more informative than Zvi’s oeuvre was the UWashington COVID Literature Situation Reports, which have been discontinued since July, to my great regret
Thanks! It’s useful to know where concretely people are getting value out of the posts, and also it’s nice to hear.
I don’t think a norm of more often saying ‘here’s why I did my strong upvote/downvote’ or otherwise treating karma as super important is a good idea (e.g. I disagree with Duncan rather strongly but haven’t had the bandwidth to respond properly) but specific feedback on what matters is great.
I don’t think a norm of more often saying ‘here’s why I did my strong upvote/downvote’ or otherwise treating karma as super important is a good idea (e.g. I disagree with Duncan rather strongly but haven’t had the bandwidth to respond properly)
I would be very interested to read what you have to say on the matter (karma and your disagreement with Duncan)
My idea—if you super down vote or super upvote you need to provide a single adjective to explain why, which would be feedback to the author and maybe the community.
I’m sometimes left wondering why people didn’t (or did) like something. That would at least be a signal I could evaluate.
That’s interesting to hear re Duncan. I hope you get the time to publish your views. My original plan was to comment every fourth strong upvote, but then I thought you might get some value out of my comment. I’m glad you did.
I strongly upvoted because
the quotations from the NPR story about the kids was value-add for me because I’d wanted to get that info but kept forgetting
Nate Silver is my mans but I have Twitter blocked because it’s an attention hazard
the point about the North Austrian government was a new model/framework/whatever that I hadn’t thought about before
it’s good to keep hammering how messed up the Paxlovid situation is during this liminal phase
the only thing I’ve read during COVID that was more informative than Zvi’s oeuvre was the UWashington COVID Literature Situation Reports, which have been discontinued since July, to my great regret
Thanks! It’s useful to know where concretely people are getting value out of the posts, and also it’s nice to hear.
I don’t think a norm of more often saying ‘here’s why I did my strong upvote/downvote’ or otherwise treating karma as super important is a good idea (e.g. I disagree with Duncan rather strongly but haven’t had the bandwidth to respond properly) but specific feedback on what matters is great.
I would be very interested to read what you have to say on the matter (karma and your disagreement with Duncan)
My idea—if you super down vote or super upvote you need to provide a single adjective to explain why, which would be feedback to the author and maybe the community.
I’m sometimes left wondering why people didn’t (or did) like something. That would at least be a signal I could evaluate.
That’s interesting to hear re Duncan. I hope you get the time to publish your views. My original plan was to comment every fourth strong upvote, but then I thought you might get some value out of my comment. I’m glad you did.