I see that the numbers indicate people disagree with this post. Since there are several clauses, it's hard to know which specifically (or all of them) are being disagreed with.

The second paragraph (beginning "Contrary to what you wrote...") is a list of factual statements, which as far as I can tell are all correct.

The third paragraph ("Most importantly, the title is plenty big...") is more subjective, but I'm currently not imagining that anyone is disagreeing with that paragraph (that is, that anyone thinks "actually, the title is too small").

The fourth paragraph ("In this case, part of the point...") is more speculative, and I could easily imagine someone reading it and thinking "that's not the point of publishing / writing a book". There's certainly a reason I put a "presumably" in there. I do still feel that there's something to what I'm saying in that paragraph. My surprise would be of a limited extent if Soares and Yudkowsky said "that was not a consideration in our decision to do this" - but I would be somewhat surprised.

I can see someone disagreeing with the first paragraph ("Given that the book..."), but my current state of mind is that such people would be simply wrong. The book is not being self-published, but is being published by Little, Brown and Company. Some excerpts from Wikipedia's article on Little, Brown and Company:

"The company was the most extensive law publisher in the United States, and also the largest importer of standard English law and miscellaneous works, introducing American buyers to the Encyclopædia Britannica, the dictionaries of William Smith, and many other standard works. In the early years [starting in 1837] Little and Brown published the Works of Daniel Webster, [...], [and] Letters of John Adams. [...] Little, Brown and Company was the American publisher for Edward Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire."

The firm was the original publisher of United States Statutes at Large beginning in 1845, under authority granted by a joint resolution of Congress.

and

During this time [about 1908 to 1985] the joint Atlantic Monthly Press/Little Brown imprint published All Quiet on the Western Front, Herge's The Adventures of Tintin, James Truslow Adams's The Adams Family, [...] [and] J. D. Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye.

The point being, the company that is publishing Soares and Yudkowsky's book, is an established company that has sold important and/or bestselling works for two centuries. The people there know what they are doing, and that includes the people who design covers, as well as the bosses of the people who design the covers.

Given that the book is being published by a major publisher, it can safely be assumed that the cover design was made by a professional cover designer, who knew what they were doing.

Contrary to what you wrote, the title has a bigger font size than both the subtitle and the authors' names (this is true of both the American and UK covers; I am primarily talking about the American cover, which I presume is the one you are referencing). Even if the author names were the same size as the title, it is immediately obvious which one is the title, and which one isn't. Putting the subtitle in a dark grey, which is much closer to the background color (black) than the color of the title (white) is, also does a lot to move emphasis towards the title of the book (away from the subtitle)

Most importantly, the title is plenty big. If it was small, then I would feel there is something to what you are saying; but the title is quite large and readable from a distance, and clearly delineated from the rest of the text on the cover.

In this case, part of the point of publishing a book (including writing it in the first place), is presumably to promote the identity of the authors, to make them a known name / schelling point for discussion about AI safety. That would indicate making the names quite prominent on the cover.

I would assume e-book orders will also play a role in encouraging the publisher to print more physical copies, because it indicates that more people are interested in reading the book.

Tim Urban has written about AI X-risk before, in a way that indicates that he's spent a good bit of time thinking about the problem. But, the point of the book seems to be to speak to people who don't have a deep knowledge of AI risk.

I agree that this description fits the paper.

If you read this and, like I did, felt unfulfilled after reading it, it's worth noting that this paper (which was linked in the OP, but which I [and perhaps the unfulfilled reader] overlooked) goes into more detail:

https://projects.panickssery.com/docs/allen-2009-a_theory_of_the_pre-modern_british_aristocracy.pdf

This post does a good job of laying out compelling arguments for thoughts adjacent to areas I've previously already enjoyed thinking about.

For the record, this sentence popped into my head while reading this: "Wait, but what if I'm Omega-V, and [Valentine] is a two boxer?"

(Edit: the context for this thought is my previous thoughts having read other posts by Valentine, which I find both quite elucidating, but also somehow have left me feeling a bit creeped out; that being said, my opinion about this post itself is strongly positive)

If you dig deep enough, temperatures should be much cooler than on / near the surface of the earth. (Unless the heat gets very intense. I don't know enough to rule that out). How much digging that deep (as opposed to the depths we usually did to) would cost, though

(The mentioned ACX post is https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/a-theoretical-case-against-education )

A recent Astral Codex Ten post contained this bit:

Fewer than 50% (ie worse than chance) can correctly answer a true-false question about whether electrons are bigger than atoms.

The linked source seems to indicate that the survey's expected answer to the question "electrons are smaller than atoms" is "true". However, I think this is likely based on a faulty understanding of reality, and in any case the question has a trickier nature than the survey or Scott Alexander give it credit for.

There's a common misconception that electrons (as well as e.g. protons and neutrons) are point particles, that is to say, that they can be said to exist at some precise location, just like a dot on a piece of graph paper.

Even when people talk about the uncertainty principle, they often lean into this misconception by suggesting that the wave function indicates "the probability that the (point-like) particle is found at a given location".

However, an electron is not a point, but rather a wavefunction which has a wide extent in space. If you were to examine the electron at the tip of my pinky finger, there is in fact a non-zero (but very, very small) part of that electron that can be found at the base of the flag which Neil Armstrong planted on the moon (n.b. I'm not looking up whether it was actually Armstrong who did that), or even all the way out in the core of Alpha Centauri.

We could still try to talk about the size of an electron (and the size of an atom, which is a similar question) by considering the volume that contains 99% of the electron (and likewise a volume that contains 99% of a proton or neutron).

Considering this volume, the largest part of any given atom would be an electron, with the nuclear particles occupying a much larger volume (something something strong force). In this sense, the size of the atom is in fact coextensive with the size of its "largest" electron, and that electron is by no means smaller than the atom. There are of course in many atoms multiple electrons, and some of these may be "smaller" than the largest electron. However, I do not think the survey had this in mind as the justification for the answer it considered "correct" for the question.

I think the appropriate next step for Scott Alexander is to retract the relevant sentence from his post.