Yeah, so like, I do think there's a skill issue component, and it's possible to write stuff with popular appeal that is not about a subject people immediately care about. There are probably limits - like, it might be possible to get your reader invested in some niche piece of academic terminology drama or whatever, but it's gonna be hard. But like, it is possible to get people to care about weird apparently-boring things. 

One of my posts that got a lot of good reception both here and on the broader internet is There's no such thing as a tree (phylogenetically), which was on tree evolution, a subject I can't imagine much of the audience previously gave a shit about. I didn't exactly intend for it to go big, but I did put a fair bit of thought into helping the "my blog reader who is interested in biology but doesn't know much about specifics" get why I thought it was interesting - stuff like "what kind of context might they have about convergent evolution", the kind of "but a banana is technically a berry!" 'knowledge' of botany people have heard. Also, like, bringing them into my emotions and surprise about what I learned - which does make a piece easier to follow along. Most people have emotions and it's great fun to read someone freak out about something. 

(Like, I couldn't say how much of this I was intentionally doing at the time, but it felt like the way to go and it seems like it worked in terms of convincing readers it was an interesting topic.)

A friend of mine is a big fan of the bergamot poisoning case. This is probably an unrelated effect but I'm no citrus expert.

Hahaha, it's not a common phrase but I have heard it. I've read exactly one cookbook that recommended it as a done-ness test (I read a lot of cookbooks) but that was a cookbook for kids and probably trying to make cooking more fun, I really don't think virtually anybody does it on the regular.

I think I see. I mean, I did post this hoping some people might agree with it or decide they agree with it. I mean, I guess my take is "some things outside the Overton window are bad and broader society is correct not to tolerate them."

I think this is a weird misunderstanding of my issue here. I believe and endorse people saying a lot of things that are outside of the overton window and are taboo in many places. For instance: "Factory farming is immoral." "It's bad when wild animals feel pain." "People should be able to get literally any surgery they want at any time." "Every golf course in large cities should be destroyed and have checkerboarded apartments-and-parks put up over it."

My issue is with the specific takes Cremieux has and ways he acts, which are racist, and harmful, and bad. 

Thanks for sharing this.

Dear people who read this and agreement-downvoted (ETA: wrote this cause above comment was well in the agreement-negatives at the time of writing): Do you think this isn't Cremieux's account, or that the quoted example is an acceptable thing to say, or what?

Eh, he was there last year, I figure he might well go again. If I happen to hear that he's definitively not attending this year (or, idk, if he ends up attending as a regular guest and not an Invited Author Guest, I take less umbrage with that) I'd love to go. 

I was honored to be invited again to this year's LessOnline - I really enjoyed the last one. However, I'm going to turn down this invitation as I'm uncomfortable being in the same company of invited author guests as Cremieux.

I didn't know who he was last year, so after hearing concerning murmurs from various places, I looked into his work. Hoo boy. I don't think that being interested in genetic differences between ethnic groups necessarily makes one racist, but I think it's the kind of area where you have to be extraordinarily careful to proceed with caution and compassion and not fall into racist fallacies (coexisting in a terrible cycle with shoddy scholarship). I do not think Cremieux meets this standard of care and compassion. 

Also, I get the sense he's generally a jerk to those around him, which is not as big of a deal but is not helping. He reacts to challenges or criticism with insults, over-the-top defensiveness, and vitriol. 

I don't like what he's about, I think the rationalist community can do better, and I do not want to be a special guest at the same event he's a special guest at.

I hope that LessOnline goes well and that those who do go have a great time, and that my assessment is completely off-base. I mean, I don't think it is, but I hope so.

Delightful! I DO enjoy knowing that!

Advice: The AI-generated diagram here doesn't add anything and in fact indicates strongly that I wouldn't want to read the post. One of the things about diagrams being so important and eye-catching associated with writing is that they communicate information, so if a diagram is clearly half-assed and wrong, it makes one assume that the text is too. (Half-assed is maybe not the word - minimally-assed? MS Paint stick figures would be fine here, for instance.)

There's extraneous detail. The text is garbled and irrelevant.

 I think if you use image-generating AI to make diagrams you should then edit it afterwards to make sure it's actually, like, good and represents what you wanted, and add your own captions.