= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
fubarobfusco comments on Open thread for December 24-31, 2013 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (207)
Edit: Yvain, the great guy that he is, is handling this amazingly. In my eyes, consider this resolved.
(This is an anonymous nick for the moment, but this issue needs to be raised and I'm not comfortable at this point doing it publicly under my own name.)
tl;dr as provided by Daniel_Burfoot: "Yvain is awesome, it's a shame he locked up his old stuff, let's lobby him to open it back up". I heartily endorse this summery, and it pretty much sums up what I have been saying.
[Due to some remarks, have redacted the links to Yvain's blogs, old and new. This is absurd, in my opinion. Yvain's new blog is a Rationality Blog in the Recent on Rationality Blogs part of the sidebar, and his old livejournal blog is linked to in many of his old posts. So I do not think that it is even meaningful to redact them. However, in the interest of not inciting argument, I have redacted them regardless.]
All of us here know of Yvain. He has posted much great stuff both here on Less Wrong, and on his blog. Insightful, brilliant stuff. If you go and look at the list of top rated Main posts, Yvain's stuff top's the lot.
A year ago, he switched blogs, from [old blog] to [new blog]. Well and fine. He had good reasons for doing so, including a desire for relative anonymity.
This, I do not object to.
However, as of a couple of weeks age, he locked his old blog, locking away many brilliant essays on a wide variety of topics. I view this as bad, to say the least. So much beautiful and brilliant stuff, of great interest to anyone interested in Less Wrong type stuff, never to see the light of day again.
What solutions are there? There are a few. My favorite so far is for Scott to restrict access by LW karma, which would allow him to maintain his privacy against the web, while still not denying those brilliant, humorous, and insightful posts to those who would truly appreciate them.
Or maybe you have another, better, idea? Please, suggest it. And whether or not you do, please, if you value the amazing contents of [old blog], help petition Scott to consider finding a solution. We have to be able to reach some sort of compromise, right?
There has been discussion in the comments section here [link removed; but it is currently the top post in the "Recent on Rationality Blogs" section] about this. Please, weigh in your support.
It was my impression that he didn't really want these blogs or identities associated so strongly. Respecting his wishes for increased privacy-by-obscurity would suggest not discussing these blogs by name openly.
[Edit: My points still stand, but this isn't an issue worth fighting over. I've gone back and edited my post.]
Good point, although I think that by this point that ship has already sailed. That said, if people really think that it is an issue I will redact the name of his old blog. Note, however, that Yvain's old Less Wrong posts are heavily sprinkled with links to things on his blog, so its not like they are remotely unconnected.
This response strikes me as a bit odd.
It reminds me of calling up an ISP and reporting a service outage, only to be told, "We don't have any reports of an outage in that service area."
Or bringing up a newly-arisen relationship problem with a partner, only to be told, "Why didn't you tell me!?"
Or telling someone their floral perfume is making your face swell up, only to be told, "I've never heard of anyone being allergic to perfume!"
For some reason, it seems that people exclude the conversation they are now having from the set of all conversations. It seems like a failure to apply the self-sampling assumption or something. Maybe it's a short-term/long-term memory thing.
In case it's not clear: Yes, I (who am a person) do really think that your comment above disrespects the apparent wishes of the person whose writing you're talking about.
No, I think it's more of an issue of refusing to generalize from a single data point. It is entirely correct to say "This conversation is a starting piece of evidence for your position, but I need to wait to gather more evidence."
You are a person, but not all people. Not even two people. So I do not wish to act on your say so alone. That said, I will repeat my earlier statement: If people [people in general, that is] really think that it is an issue I will redact the name of his old blog.
it doesn't really matter if people think it's an issue as long as yvain does.
Perhaps. Do note that it is listed in the Recent On Rationality Blogs sidebar, so its not really that secret at all. Nevertheless, I have redacted the relevant parts, in order to avoid unseemly bickering, as this discussion has little to no relevance to my main thesis.