But do you really think LessWrong should be going for something more comprehensive than that
...no, for the reasons you state. And I’m not sure why you think I do. Having found those I wasn’t planning on actively searching for a better answer (although I’m looking forward to checking out both the chapter you recommend and the posts you are writing).
Sorry, I think these comments came across as more aggressive than I was intending. I think there’s mutual confusion/talking at cross-purposes here. I’m not sure it’s worth digging into too much since I’m not sure there’s actually any decision-relevant disagreement, so feel free to disregard the following (uh, even more than usual) if you don’t fancy digging into this further. :-)
I’m not sure why you think I do.
From my perspective, my confusion arises from the following:
You included basic coronavirus biology on something called a LessWrong coronavirus agenda, as an example of something you wanted to “nudg[e] LessWrong to pursue”;
You then gave a counterexample of something that both assumed too much background knowledge and left too much out, suggesting that you’d like whatever LessWrong pursued in that area to not have those deficiencies;
This suggested to me that you’d like LessWrong coverage of basic coronavirus biology that simultaneously assumed less background knowledge and left less out than that counterexample;
But I don’t see how that would be possible without someone on LessWrong writing a complete from-first-principles molecular biology course.
Based on this conversation I think I’m probably misinterpreting what inclusion on the agenda implies you’d like to see LessWrongers do.
...no, for the reasons you state. And I’m not sure why you think I do. Having found those I wasn’t planning on actively searching for a better answer (although I’m looking forward to checking out both the chapter you recommend and the posts you are writing).
Sorry, I think these comments came across as more aggressive than I was intending. I think there’s mutual confusion/talking at cross-purposes here. I’m not sure it’s worth digging into too much since I’m not sure there’s actually any decision-relevant disagreement, so feel free to disregard the following (uh, even more than usual) if you don’t fancy digging into this further. :-)
From my perspective, my confusion arises from the following:
You included basic coronavirus biology on something called a LessWrong coronavirus agenda, as an example of something you wanted to “nudg[e] LessWrong to pursue”;
You then gave a counterexample of something that both assumed too much background knowledge and left too much out, suggesting that you’d like whatever LessWrong pursued in that area to not have those deficiencies;
This suggested to me that you’d like LessWrong coverage of basic coronavirus biology that simultaneously assumed less background knowledge and left less out than that counterexample;
But I don’t see how that would be possible without someone on LessWrong writing a complete from-first-principles molecular biology course.
Based on this conversation I think I’m probably misinterpreting what inclusion on the agenda implies you’d like to see LessWrongers do.