Thanks! Yeah, it’s definitely really long and if I had more time it would have been even longer!
I guess if I’d written a shorter review I would have either skipped key aspects of his work, had less space in which to help clarify his frames or not been able to explain why his ideas are relevant to rationalists.
I have a bit of duplication, but figuring out how to remove that would be challenging.
This review is great. I’m actually impressed how you managed to extract all that relevant information and convey it relatively well in this not-terribly-long blogpost.
Thanks, I appreciate that. I still feel that it would benefit from another round of edits, but I can’t see myself going over it again in the foreseeable future.
Edit: Funnily enough, immediately after writing this comment I did go over it and fix numerous grammatical/spelling mistakes/poorly phrased segments.
Thanks! Yeah, it’s definitely really long and if I had more time it would have been even longer!
I guess if I’d written a shorter review I would have either skipped key aspects of his work, had less space in which to help clarify his frames or not been able to explain why his ideas are relevant to rationalists.
I have a bit of duplication, but figuring out how to remove that would be challenging.
This review is great. I’m actually impressed how you managed to extract all that relevant information and convey it relatively well in this not-terribly-long blogpost.
Thanks, I appreciate that. I still feel that it would benefit from another round of edits, but I can’t see myself going over it again in the foreseeable future.
Edit: Funnily enough, immediately after writing this comment I did go over it and fix numerous grammatical/spelling mistakes/poorly phrased segments.