Amusingly, I found a 16-year old comment asking for jargon integration. Dropping it here just to document that people want this, so that people don't say "Who wants this?" without an answer.

People seeing this in the future: Check out Draw a Box for some low-level mechanical stuff.

In regard to bullet 1, I would caution against relying on this. If you show up to many fields expecting to smash through it because you're smart, you'll be torn to bits in many many fields. This is because the fields that are useful are already being dominated by people who are good at things to the extent that they're economically or emotionally valuable.

The exact example of chess makes this clear. If a smart LWer thinks "Oh, I'll get to the chess leaderboards because I'm really smart", they are going to find out after some weeks of studying that… everyone else on the leaderboards is smart too!

"Trauma" is a bad experience deemed anomalous. It means "the world is not usually like that". We do not call any behavior or emotional pattern "trauma" if it is obviously adaptive.

I think this is just incorrect? It is still a learned behavior if it's adaptive, it's just that people don't go to the doctor's office complaining that they are afraid of getting stabbed when they got stabbed last Tuesday. You're right that we wouldn't generally call this trauma, but that doesn't mean that the person is not traumatized.

If we had a magical cure for trauma and we used it on the guy who gets stabbed on Tuesdays, he would still be afraid of knives and would perhaps even be better at avoiding being stabbed (since he now avoids the subway and bikes to work instead of freezing up in a fugue while he rides). I think it would be fair under this example to say "Trauma is a certain kind of learned response [with a gajillion caveats]", not your definition.

I'm adding a YouTube link for Singularity because I've really grown to like it in the 3 years since I read this post.

E.g. we know that judges are more likely to convict ugly people that pretty people. More likely to convict unsympathetic, but innocent parties, compared to sympathetic innocent parties. More likely to convict people of colour rather than white folks. More likely, troublingly, to convict someone if they are hearing a case just before lunch (when they are hangry) compared to just after lunch (when they are happy and chill cause they just ate).

For the record, a lot of these didn't hold up when investigated later.

Across all websites I've been on in my life, I have posted more than 100000 comments (resulting in many interactions), so while things like psychoanalyzing people, assuming intentions, and making stereotypes is "bad", I simply have too much training data, and too few incorrect guesses not to do this.

On the contrary, your guess did not take context into account and was bad. They were downvoted for answering in a way which didn't answer the question, had many typos, and otherwise took more effort to read than the information it contained was worth.

Your comment "added more heat than light" for no reason, with no prompting. I explicitly am only making this comment because you posted a long paragraph explaining why you are so sure that you did a good job analyzing when it looks like you did a very poor one. Perhaps people in the past have not given useful feedback, so I will give a short piece: do not do this psycho-analysis until you have generated at least 2 alternate theories for what happened.

The note that it isn't what the username is for is kind of interesting. There are two places to put information on social media: your account and the media attached to your account. Here, instead of attaching some GWWC information to every piece of media (Tweet/post/picture/essay etc), the idea is to attach it to the account, but that really does feel quite weird to me.

I'm glad you said that.

(I'm on a Framework computer)

Each of your examples is a lot easier to read, since I've already learned how much I should ignore the circles and how much I should pay attention to them. I'd be quite happy with either.

If someone really really wants color, try using subtle colors. I fiddled around, and on my screen, rgb(80,20,0) is both imperceptible and easily noticed. You really can do a lot with subtlety, but of course the downside is that this sucks for people who have a harder time seeing. From the accessibility standpoint, my favorite (out of the original, your 2 mockups, and my ugly color hinting) is your green circle version. It should be visible to absolutely everyone when they look for it, but shouldn't get in anyone's way.

I appreciate the mockups!

Technical discussion aside, please see a UI designer or similar about how to style this, because it has the potential to really make LessWrong unpleasant to read without it really being obvious at all. I try below to make some comments and recommendations, but I recognize that I'm not very good at this (yet?).

Two nightmare issues to watch out for:

1. Too little contrast from the background.
2. Too much contrast from the foreground.

1. Blending in

This would make the jargon text harder to see by giving it less visibility than the surrounding text. Your demonstrated gray has this issue. Turn your screen brightness up a bunch and the article looks a bit like Swiss cheese (because the contrast between the white background and the black text increases, the relative contrast between the white background and the gray text decreases).

2. Jumping out

This would make the entire text harder to read by making it jump around in either style or color. Link-dense text can run into this problem^[1]. In my opinion, the demo has this issue a bit in §0 (but not in the TLDR).

As an alternative, consider styling like a footnote/endnote. An example of a website that pulls off multiple floating note styles without it being attention-grabby is Wait But Why. Take a look at the end of the first main body paragraph on this page for an example.