. — LessWrong

The Harvard Gazette begins with:

Antanas Mockus had just resigned from the top job of Colombian National University.

I'm amused it doesn't say why. (He was going to talk on a stage; students were shouting so loud he couldn't speak; he mooned them, they shut up, he gave his talk. On national television, too.)

[Edit] It does say why, but a while into the article.

I have to say: he certainly 'won'. Rationality or not, that is one impressive list of results.

Is there a difference between a "radical instrumental rationalist" and an unconventionally successful leader?

Do you mean for "unconventionally" to modify "successful"? A leader who is successful in unconventional ways, if they intended the success, might be, but I think they'd have to (warning, tvtropes link) intend to be.

This article has numbers in it, on the near side of the link.

This is good information on what sorts of things it takes to get a reader to invest their time- don't ignore it.

Maybe people like to hear about state-level ideas more than person-level ideas. Or maybe these ideas are more specific, while the article/documentary about Dolly Freed was more of a story.