Posting links should be low-friction, and so it should be fine to post links without comment.

Maybe there could be an optional "summary" field, as a nudge for the link posters.

Self-help authors keep writing longer books, self-help customers keep learning how to read faster or switch to reading summaries on third-party websites...

I saw the 2015 remake of Death Note, and I was so disappointed. :(

The goal of the remake was probably to make the conflict of two highly intelligent opponents more accessible to an audience of normies. Not a bad idea per se; I actually liked some of the changes.

The problem is that while making the changes, they introduced a few obvious logical errors, probably as a side effect of trying to make some scenes more dramatic. Which matters a lot in a story based on the premise that two highly intelligent opponents are fighting by exploiting each other's smallest mistakes; and then something completely stupid happens and no one notices, most likely because the author of the remake didn't notice it.

I'll try to avoid being unnecessarily specific; but here is the general pattern: In the story universe, it is possible to cast magical spells on other people. If certain preconditions are met, the magic makes people follow a script specified by the caster. If the preconditions are not met, nothing happens. (There is no such thing as partially meeting the preconditions; it's either yes or no.)

However, at least twice in the series the following happens: The mage casts the spell with a sequence of unlikely actions on someone. The victim does the unlikely action A, then does the unlikely action B, and then... as a big surprise... at last moment it turns out they don't do the remaining unlikely action C! How is that possible? Turns out someone else outsmarted the mage and made some of the preconditions fail, so the magic spell didn't work.

I guess at this moment the audience is supposed to cheer for the smart opponent, but I am left scratching my head: so, if the preconditions of the spell were not met, how was it possible in the first place that the victim did the unlikely actions A and B? The magic spell was cast in privacy; the victim had no chance to know the values of A, B, C. The victim didn't expect the spell to be cast; in one case the victim's unusual behavior was a new information for the opponent. It wasn't a coincidence; in one case the victim went to a specified abandoned place and pretended to be dead.

I generally don't mind something slightly illogical here and then, if the plot requires it. But in this specific case, it ruined the essence of the story. After this, "intelligent opponents cleverly gaining information by exploiting each other's small mistakes" became merely an applause light without substance.

Restating stuff in different words is a good rationalist exercise, and "words used in empirical economics and psychology" is probably a better choice than most others.

Not sure how the language of empirical economics and psychology would help with the quantum physics, or even Bayesian equations, though.

I guess he fails to respect literally everyone, but he shows respect to enough people who are traditionally disrespected by politicians of both parties.

In other words, instead of the "I am better than you" signalling game, he focuses on the game of getting votes. Most politicians play a mix of both games. (Which is probably better in long term. If Trump happens to lose this election, his chances are gone. On the other hand, if Hillary loses, she can still run for the president 4 years later.)

My personal reaction: the prior probability that it's bullshit doesn't motivate me to spend 48 minutes watching it.

Even just converting science into a Wikipedia-like format would be useful for the sake of open access. Imagine if all citations in a paper were a hyperlink away, and the abstract would display if you hovered your mouse over the link.

YES! YES! YES! And this could be done pretty much automatically. Also, links in the reverse direction: "who cited this paper?" with abstracts in tooltips.

But there is much more that could be done in the hypothetical Science Wiki. For example, imagine that the reverse citations that disagree with the original paper would appear in a different color or with a different icon, so you could immediately check "who disagree with this paper?". That would already require some human work (unfortunately, with all the problems that follow, such as edit wars and editor corruption). Or imagine having a "Talk page" for each of these papers. Imagine people trying to write better third-party abstracts: more accessible, less buzzwords, adding some context from later research. Imagine people trying to write a simpler version of the more popular papers...

The science could be made more accessible and popular.

As a person who has read 100% of the Sequences, I would also prefer if there would exist a shorter version. But, as far as I know, it doesn't exist yet. Someone would have to make it. Someone other than Eliezer, because this is not at the top of his priority list.

Would I be losing anything if I didn't need to be convinced, I just want to know the pointers?

You would be probably more likely to forget them. In general, longer text requires you to spend more time focusing on the idea. If someone would convert the Sequences into a PowerPoint presentation of 20 pages, a week later you probably wouldn't remember anything.

I realize how what I wrote here conflicts with my desire to have a shorter version of the Sequences, and... I don't know. Perhaps the shorter version should use other techniques for easier memorization, e.g. funny pictures.

I use exactly the same approach! When you position the matrices this way, it becomes completely obvious.