The main heuristics I feel activate when I read this are

1. Good feeling that this article will inspire people to work on an important problem, because I will send it around.
2. Good feeling that this article will help people who do not get inspired easily to just get started and avoid Akrasia.

Both of which come often from Eliezer's articles often, but the main thing that jumped out at me was the seamless interweave of different parts of history (Edison/Polymath) to draw conclusions about needed future action. Which we see very often in the sequences especially when past scientists are used as examples.

It's clear, emphatic, fairly precise, and doesn't dance around the point it's trying to make - but without presenting too many ideas in too short a space. It's how you write if you're being careful to be understood and interesting. Most writing I encounter isn't like this at all -- computer scientists largely can't write -- and so it does have a family resemblance to Eliezer's writing.

Your voices are different enough that I don't think I'd confuse them.

I'd rather you found your own voice.